![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This bit sounds ok
By doing so, nutrigenomics aims to develop rational means to optimise nutrition, with respect to the subject's genotype.
This bit sounds less ok
" it allows the examination of how nutrients affect the thousands of genes present in the human genome. Nutrigenomics involves the characterization of gene products and the physiological function and interactions of these products. This includes how nutrients impact on the production and action of specific gene products and how these proteins in turn affect the response to nutrients."
The references look not-good. And having a quick look on the WWW shows me that a lot of people who use the word "nutrigenomics" also use words like "reiki" or "healing energy" and so on.
Is "nutrigenomics" valid science with fringe hangers-on (like anything quantum)? Or is it bunkum?
-- 178.103.43.176 ( talk) 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a very confusing system. :-/
There is currently an AfD on Heim theory. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC).
There is a lot of discussion, at Jimbo's page, NPOVN and Christian Science as to whether it's neutral to call Christian Science pseudoscience in connection with it's positions on Medicine and Science. More knowledgeable input welcome, IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The OP misstates the issue -- which is that should Wikipedia's voice be used to call a religion a "pseudoscience" and not even use the word "religion" in the lead? The word "religion" was, in fact, removed after it was suggested to be added to the lead. There is no issue of "fringe" here except insofar as all religions are "fringe" to someone. Nor do I find an aside about Astrology to be particularly on point here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a fringe belief system insofar as it contradicts science is outside the remit of this noticeboard; that psuedoscientific beliefs are part of a religion is neither an excuse nor surprising. CS beliefs are pseudoscience just as much as creationism or scientology are, though only the parts that actually attempt to challenge science. Sædon talk 02:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
From List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Religious and spiritual beliefs:
{{
cite magazine}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total Immersion is to swimming as ChiRunning is to running. The founder appears to be a successful promoter of the technique in that TI has a large web presence, however, I am having difficult finding " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My inclination is to go to Afd with it, but I thought I would check in here first to see if anyone is able to locate any reliable secondary sources in which a proper stub could be salvaged. Thanks! Location ( talk) 05:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
... yet again. "Restoring balance", not-remotely-MEDRS compliant sources, baroque displays of straw men, etc, etc. Skinwalker ( talk) 04:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this guy meets our notability criteria. If you look for him in Google books you find mention of his name in various fringe books, but not much else. He is used, or rather I think misused, in a variety of articles. Ran into this when I found the website [yurileveratto.com/] being spammed which led me to a group of non-notable articles - Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress - all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratt and his personal website which I am taking to AfD. Dougweller ( talk) 15:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Coincidence? Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Leveratto. Dougweller ( talk) 14:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Claims that rods have been "discovered" in Malaysia published a few days ago in a Malaysian newspaper have been added as "new information" to the article. I believe this material was added in good faith, so I've left it in, slightly expanded for context. However after carefully reading the story, I find its claims to be wildly uncharacteristic of a WP:RS reliable source. It states as fact that "rods" have never been physically or scientifically explained, that insects have no ability to turn at extreme speed, and names someone called "Matthew Lazenby @ Jigger" as the discoverer of such wisdom. My instinct at this point is to remove this questionable "report" from the article, but I can't tell if the source, dailyexpress.com, is actually a reliable source, or the Malaysian equivalent of the Weekly World News. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Dougweller ( talk) 16:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yet another astrology fork: Domicile (astrology) - and the only source cited is a entirely unremarkable website [10] with no indication of why it should have any particular credibility, even to the 'believers'. If 'domicile' in this context means something different from ' House (astrology)', it is unclear, and the latter article at least cites a few more sources. I can see no reason why the former article couldn't be merged into 'house' - or at least, the parts from 'domicile' which can actually be sourced to something better than 'some bloke on the internet'. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
A few extra eyes on James H. Fetzer would be appreciated as there have been a few recent attempt to add unreliable and primary source material to the article. Thanks! Location ( talk) 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing issues discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#EA WorldView and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors. Location ( talk) 17:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Psychotronics was recently (re)created following an Articles for Creation request, and apparently translated from the Spanish although the Spanish article is a lot shorter. From a (very) quick glance, it looks OK with properly formatted references etc. But it's appallingly badly written, filled with typical fringe bollocks and, most importantly, draws on a host of sources which I don't think are likely to be held up to be reliable. Some of the sources are published books but, for example, published by "The Theosophical Publishing House".
I feel the entire article is beyond salvation and just needs deleting as fringe-cruft, but am getting bogged down in trying to work out what is reliable, if anything.
Perhaps someone else could take a look at it? GDallimore ( Talk) 01:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I see that the article Parapsychology, is still changing since the beggining (17:04, September 29, 2001), even quite naively nowadays, up to a quite prolonged edition, please see: [11], and its unreliable references 127- 129... perhaps the article Parapsychology is not the best reference to accude after deleting mine, which has been criticized because of mistakes such as those already mentioned by GDallimore... aside that possibility of deletion, realize that Psychotronics is a topic that deserves special attention due to the extension of the other topic. I insist that Wikipedians must be restricted to the same policies, in order to edit parallely the same Wikipedia. I disagree to GDallimore, in starting the article according to your point of view about "Psychotronics"... it was accepted and rated as C-Class by SarahStierch, it wasn't so wrong!.. you already deleted even the patents!..-- Paritto (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
(Off topic comment moved to my talk page) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Crop circle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has, for as long as I can remember, been a battleground. Every time we pare it back to reflect the views of the reality-based community (circles are almost all man-made as pranks, those which are not have prosaic explanations), along come the "cereologists" to promote the idea that the scientific consensus view is in some way controversial - what Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. described as "the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it."
Latest problem user is Stochastikos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has virtually no contributions to Wikipedia other than to try to boost the paranormal side in the crop circle article.
I am now warning him that per previous consensus, continuing in the same vein may get him topic-banned form crop circle and potentially any other article on fringe science or pseudoscience. Guy ( Help!) 20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
My post was probably getting somewhat off topic for this board, whose aim is to alert people. Yet, I think it is good to have a big picture as one does things. So I will stop now, after pointing out a couple of issues. Regarding Bhny's comment, yes, Wikipedia is absolutely better than the chaos called the websphere where Elvis is still alive and making crop circles. But I do not have (and do not know of anyone who does) any idea of how rampant fringe is within Wikipedia and how it will compares to tightly managed systems such as Quora. Only time will tell. Regarding Guy's point about persisting on this board, I totally support any effort to fend off fringe. Yet I think we do need to be realistic. So again, only time will tell, but I have for long hoped (and suggested on WP:VP, etc.) for much less tolerance for fringe, and faster expulsion via "rapid Rfc/U" for persistent fringe editors. But one thing I am ready to bet on: given the diverse nature of editor views, major Wiki-policy changes are pretty hard to implement now. History2007 ( talk) 22:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I wondering if it might be helpful to create a fringe theory wikiproject under whose auspices this noticeboard would then be placed, and which could tag articles as being under its purview. Mangoe ( talk) 16:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
A statement in Mark Lane (author) reads:
In this context, "ignored", means "intentionally disregarded", implying that the Warren Commission was involved in a conspiracy to suppress evidence regarding the assassination of JFK. I have attempted in different ways to change "ignore" to "not interviewed" or attribute the term "ignored" to the original author from which the statement was taken (i.e. R. Andrew Kiel in J. Edgar Hoover. The Father of the Cold War. How His Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup and Escalation of the Vietnam War) with no success. Good luck finding information on Kiel to determine if he is an expert on Hoover, but from the snippets that can be gleaned within GoogleBooks, the book does appear to be conspiracy oriented. [Edit: All I can find on Kiel is that he "teaches United States History at a senior high school in Ohio".] Ideas on how this should be addressed? Location ( talk) 22:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow. You really went there? I'm going to remind you once, nicely, to please refrain from commenting on editors. When I'm not editing articles the likes of Chuck E. Cheese's or Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire, or arguing vociferously against editors at the Conspiracy theory article who are attempting to legitimize their crackpot and extreme theory-crafting, I do indeed dabble in controversial political subject matter. That experience has taught me that when an editor can't make a reasoned argument about content and edits, and instead resorts to attacking editors, nothing good will follow. Let's not do that again, okay?
Correction: Xenophrenic does not seem to think that. Xenophrenic thinks that if an apparently reliable source is not determined to be unreliable, and an assertion from that source stands uncontradicted by other reliable sources, the assertion should be accepted as uncontested fact. See the difference? So either show that the (Kiel) source doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, or produce a reliable source that conveys different or contrary information. (You'll note that I already suggested this above.)
Correction: No, I did not misstate Wikipedia policy. Policy says that we do not present fact as opinion (and "attributing" an assertion as "According to 'source'..." conveys that it is merely opinion held by that source). I see that you omitted an explanation of how I "misstated" policy, so I anxiously look forward to your justification.
That is an interesting assertion. I doubt that I would have taken issue with the attribution of information from Kiel if similar attribution was applied to content in the article from Bugliosi, Moore, et al. But it wasn't. And since no one has raised the reliability issue of Kiel at WP:RSN, nor provided sourced information contradicting Kiel (and Lane, and de Antonio, and others?), there appears to me to be a selective application of "common sense" here.
Please note that I share some of the concerns expressed above about the author (Kiel - not exactly widely published), the book (with its provocative title), and the publisher (a 'University' press not tied to a specific university?) -- but at the same time, it can be said that the source is from an academic, published by a specialist in "high-quality research and textbooks", and is heavily annotated and footnoted with an almost 100-page bibliography. You really should raise the reliability concern in the appropriate venue. Also, please note that the content under discussion asserts merely that the WC bypassed certain witness testimony for whatever reasons (and Paul B mentions several probable ones above), and does not state or imply that the WC did so as part of a "conspiracy to suppress evidence", as suggested above.
I would like to second that request. In addition, I would like to remind editors to refrain from making edits on the material being discussed while issues and concerns remain unresolved. If your need to edit war is that great, while an unconcluded discussion is ongoing, perhaps a diversion is in order. Xenophrenic ( talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to request that this conversation be narrowed to a discussion of how we at Wikipedia should handle fringe views concerning the Warren Commission, with a possible expansion into a discussion of how we at Wikipedia should handle fringe political views in general. Several of the issues brought up by Xenophrenic above are outside of the scope of the fringe theories noticeboard. I advise not responding here to these off-topic side issues even if you believe that they are incorrect. I advise instead discussing the reliability of the sources on the reliable sources noticeboard, discussing the content or the article on the article talk page, and refocusing this thread on a discussion of Wikipedia should handle fringe views concerning the Warren Commission and other political fringe views. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This Friday night the History Channel presents 'America Unearthed' "n AMERICA UNEARTHED, forensic geologist Scott Wolter, a real-life Indiana Jones, will reveal that the history we all learned in school may not always be the whole story. Across the country, ancient symbols, religious relics and unexplained artifacts suggest that civilizations from around the world have left their mark for us to find today. Wolter not only digs through the surprising burial ground that is America for arcaheological secrets, but he also uncovers compelling evidence that pre-dates the official "discovery" of the New World and turns a lot of what we think we know about American history on its head. America Unearthed proves there is a lot we don't know about our past, and that people have gone to great lengths to cover up these mysteries." [13]. It will also include claims that the Mayas visited Georgia. Dougweller ( talk) 19:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There is now an edit war in which a new account, who appears to be claiming to be Wolter himself, is removing all criticism. Paul B ( talk) 15:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced yet this this author is notable. I'm surprised at the number of links that have been found so far [16]. Google shows up many more. [17]. Even found Philip Coppens Dead (quickly deleted). His death may increase this. There may be times when it's appropriate to use him, but if anyone has spare time they might want to check some of these sometime. Dougweller ( talk) 16:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
He led me to this. Does it seem like a reputable publication to anyone else? If so, I may not nominate it for deletion. Deb ( talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
After a bit of googling, came to the conclusion that it is notable, so I have added some third-party references. Deb ( talk) 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting article in Slate:
Their conclusion:
"Given this history, it's easy to understand why fanatical devotees gravitate to unorthodox approaches to fusion energy, be they cold-fusion moonbattery or schemes touted by startup companies with more cash than brains. The mainstream scientists who've been pursuing the dream have left us with little more than a thicket of delusions and broken promises. And, if one is to believe them now, after six decades of work, the clean, nearly limitless power of fusion is still 20 years away. At this rate, it will always be." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor here is adding material from Robert Schoch and removing material by Ken Feder [19] on the grounds that " Feder is not a primary source and is only repeating the opinion of someone else and is redundant regardless. Find a primary source such as Lehner is you want ot add to this topic.)" This is also a breach of NPOV. Dougweller ( talk) 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
First, I'm inclined to move this bio back to Papus given that this is the common name used to refer to this seminal hermeticism proponent. Second, the article is rather sad, and is at present dominated by a "just-so" story about how he predicted the death of Tsar Nicholas II. Mangoe ( talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Editing at this crapola Discovery Channel exposé is threatening to pick up again. Really it needs to be run over with a lawnmower as I am guessing right off the bat that nobody in the field really takes the claims seriously. Mangoe ( talk) 14:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I put merge templates on the article for the documentary and the book and argue that they should be redirected to the article on the tomb itself. I think putting all important information in one place better follows WP:NPOV policy as far as undue weight, content forks, and so forth. In practice it should be more purge than merge. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone make heads or tails of this? I think something might have been lost in translation. Does not appear to be notable to me, but wanted to check here before AfDing it. a13ean ( talk) 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't figure it out either, but it does appear to be quite popular: [ http://www.google.com/search?q="Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U" ] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that an uncorroborated 2007 interpretation of a small subset of the works of John Wilkins, a 17th century English clergyman and natural philosopher, by the late Pat Naughtin, an Australian metrication campaigner also known as Mr. Metrication, is being used (both directly and indirectly) to support the notion that the present day metric system was invented, not by the French at the end of the 18th century as is the traditional and mainstream historical view, but by the said John Wilkins in the mid 17th century.
My curiosity was aroused yesterday when I came across the claim in the " International System of Units" article that those in France who developed the metric system in the 1790s "used a number of principles first proposed by the English cleric John Wilkins in 1668". This assertion was not supported by the cited reference, which was actually a citation referring to a scanned copy of part of a 1668 essay by Wilkins, and a "translation" of it by Pat Naughtin - hosted on the "Metric Matters" website, the website of the said Pat Naughtin. I then decided to look for other links to John Wilkins.
Next I came across him in " Metric system". In the history section there I found this: "The idea of a metric system was proposed by John Wilkins, first secretary of the Royal Society of London in 1668." This was again accompanied by a cite of Pat Naughtin's scan and "translation" of part of Wilkins's essay and also by a cite linking to a BBC video reporting that Naughtin claimed to have discovered, in an ancient book, that Wilkins had invented the metric system. This was now getting even more intriguing.
I also found similar claims, supported only by Naughtin's "translation" or the BBC report about it in " Metre", " History of the metric system", " England" and " Kilogram" and totally unsupported in " Lists of British inventions".
In each of those articles I tried to "neutralise" or water-down the claims for Wilkins's role, leaving the possibility that he had described a decimal system, but removing the (explicit and implicit) implications that he had invented the actual metric system of today. This didn't go down too well with another editor though, who came back with some other references. Each of the new references though, either drew directly from Naughtin's interpretation of Wilkins's essay, or indirectly via the website of the UK Metric Association (UKMA, a single-issue metrication pressure group) who cite Naughtin's interpretation.
I would like to hear the opinions of those here as to whether Naughtin's interpretation of Wilkins's work (and direct and indirect references to it) should be deemed to be a fringe view or whether it can now be accepted as the mainstream view on this important aspect of the history of the metric system.
The references:
MeasureIT ( talk) 18:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, I am the “other editor” mentioned by User:MeasureIT. He did not have the courtesy to let me know about this discussion (I had notified the 3RR noticeboard about his behaviour shortly before he posted here). I would like to raise a few points:
In response to User:Mangoe, we can cite Wilkins for a lot more than just decimalisation – his proposal, apart from the use of a pendulum rather than the earth’s meridian and the use of a standard set of prefixes encompassed every other aspect of the metric system as first introduced by the French a century later. I agree that we cannot state that he “invented” the metric system or that he was the first, but we do not know how much of his proposal was taken on board by Jefferson or by the French and how much they developed independently of Wilkins.
All that Naughtin did was to publicise to the world of metrology one chapter from a book, the whole of which was regarded by philosophers is being a good first attempt at classifying many things in nature. I propose that Wilkins should be included in the List of British Inventions with a caveat that this is the earliest ‘’known’’proposal and cite reliable sources (of which there are many) that give the credit to Mouton.
Martinvl ( talk) 08:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is the use of black and white statements like "So-and-so invented the metric system". This is the way of speaking that the media like; everything is the best this, the first that, the most wonderful whatever. It sells TV shows. We should use less hype. Wilkins proposed a system of measures based on powers of ten, which is very interesting, but he didn't design the other main features of the future "metric system". Just state the plain facts. Zero talk 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
measurement." Nothing about being a mover, let alone being a prime mover of the metric system. Agricolae ( talk) 21:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
A book, published in 2012 by Terry Quinn FRS (former director of the BIPM) ( extracts here) credits Wilkins as having proposed a system that was essentially the same as the French decimal system. Quinn make no mention of Mouton. I think that this settles the argument. Martinvl ( talk) 08:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Two more comments:
Nothing new under the sun... It seems this argument has been around longer than we thought. In 1805, just 10 years after the French adopted the metric system, a letter appeared in the Philosophical Magazine of London (Vol. 21, No. 81, Feb 1805, pp. 163–173) [23] arguing that all the essentials were invented by Wilkins and decrying the fact that it was implemented by the French without acknowledging the British priority. After quoting at length from Wilkins' book, it says (p.170):
Is that great or what? Incidentally on page 173 there is an intriguing comment "the decimal division of weights and measures has long been established in China" which shouldn't be hard to find a modern citation for if it is true. Zero talk 15:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: the closed discussion below includes notes to the effect that discussion should move to the article talk page but instead, as mentioned above, a whole new page has been created. Is this a good idea?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This noticeboard is not the appropriate place for editors of Genetic studies on Jews to continue lengthy discussions, which should normally take place on the article talk page. Regular contributors to FTN, uninvolved in this or related articles. have made several diverse and reasonable points concerning the original question, without reaching a clear consensus. At the moment the discussion has started to become a little too personalised and is swamping this noticeboard. If it must be continued here, please could it be moved to a subpage? Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 17:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate more eyes on Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thought Field Therapy, and Tapas Acupressure Technique; there appears to be an effort to make these fringe psychology topics more mainstream by use of non-independent sources and WP:SYNTHing together sources. Thanks. Yobol ( talk) 22:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Fringe conference masquerading as a serious study of prehistory. Dougweller ( talk) 12:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
An article on a theory regarding what seems to be a variant form on the Gospel of the Hebrews hypothesized by some modern scholars, and an existing spinout article on that theory, is currently being discussed at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#New merge tag, where that spinout article is being suggested for merging into the main article. The questions so far as I can tell are, basically, about whether the spinout article contains SYNTH problems as well as, possibly, NOTABILITY problems, and whether it ultimately should be merged into the other article. Almost all articles relating to early Christianity around here deal in some way with the beliefs of individual editors, sometimes regarding ideas which have achieved some degree of notability, sometimes not. In any event, I believe it would very much be in the interests of everyone if some knowledgable editors from this board reviewed the material and probably discussed the matter on the talk page of the article. John Carter ( talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Of interest:
Talk:Panspermia#Chandra Wickramasinghe's fringe science
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Fossil Diatoms in a New Carbonaceous Meteorite
--
Guy Macon (
talk)
21:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The alleged Talmud has a J instead of an E because extra-terrestrials told Billy Meier to put it there. Hoax creator's article needs, work, Talmud needs either an AfD or a para in Meier's article and turning it into a redirect. Dougweller ( talk) 11:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Editors are pressing Stephen Tonchen's birther theories as meriting equal and opposite coverage to the usual view. It as been suggested we should be involved in this; discussion is taking place on the article talk page. Mangoe ( talk) 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe The Natural-Born-Clause article accurately reflects contemporary legal and popular thought; however, all may be moot if original understanding of the founders is what Birther legal scholars (named under Major Revision Needed) claim. These are unified and therefore strong in voice; they see “constitutional heresy,” and they have never yet seen “their day” in the higher courts. Perhaps they won’t. However, if they do, the Supreme Court will look intensely for original intent. Is the dominant contemporary legal-and-popular-thought skyscraper built on a weak foundation? Even if a minority opinion saw it their way, heavy odds are on the side of scandal in a politically charged combustion chamber ready for that spark--see the talk page argument-- especially if any attempt is made to “suspend” the Constitution in the tumult of the financial days ahead. (2013 is not going to be a nice year in the bond market (four times larger than the stock market with a popped bubble bigger than 2008 and hyperinflation the moment interest rates rise.) I wish this were exaggeration; it’s not.) The smaller courts seem to have sensed this higher court possibility; the VAST majority of decisions have AVOIDED comment, LIKE AVOIDING THE PLAGUE. Wikipedia would want to be safely in the NPOV zone. That’s the point of “Major Revision Needed”—the dispute is real and threatens, however “fringe” an editor or a consensus of editors may have thought the issue was in the past. Be sure a “fringe” label is not just a no-substance, fraud-admitting “Alinsky or an excuse for one-sided POV!”
As I said on the talk page, I don’t have the time to do it justice. Somebody else will have to do it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthebetter ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting article from Slate Magazine's Bad Astronomy blog: No, Diatoms Have Not Been Found in a Meteorite. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"It has been proposed in this section that Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts be renamed and moved to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses." Dougweller ( talk) 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, maybe this skewed, clueless discussion explains the absurd voting behaviour in the RfC. Since when is the Norse settlement in Canada "dismissed by people like, you know, archaeologists"? And pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and America, while not actually proved, is such a promising hypothesis due to the sweet potato connection (not just the plant, also the word for it) that a lot of serious researchers seem to be looking for this right now. The only thing that is wrong with the title is the silly plural. Before Gun Powder Ma moved the article to the "hypotheses" title in July without consensus, the title was Pre-columbian transoceanic contact, singular. But then the move wasn't undone correctly.
Has the fringe noticeboard become the new playground for the group voters who used to populate WP:ARS in order to cast mindless keep votes at deletion discussions? How about reading an article before voting on it? The fringe in it is clearly marked as such, maybe even too clearly. Hans Adler 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Edits by Pottinger's cats ( talk · contribs) (added originally through 128.114.105.66 ( talk · contribs)) are blatant WP:SYN violations from my viewpoint, as well as NPOV and FRINGE. Discussion (what there is of it) here).
Basically, Pottinger's cats wants to rebut criticism of the foundation with his own original research, sourced by primary sources (changes presented below in bold):
They also point out that prior to the widespread use of pasteurization, many diseases were commonly transmitted by raw milk, while they made up less than 1% of food and water contamination disease outbreaks by 2005[17][18], though the FDA's own source data shows that for Listeria contamination, raw, unpasteurized milk had 3.1 cases, pasteurized milk had 90.8 cases, and Deli meats had 1598.7 cases.
The director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration division of plant- and dairy-food safety, John Sheehan, called the organization's claims on the health benefits and safety of raw milk "false, devoid of scientific support, and misleading to consumers"[2], though an article in the International Milk Genomics Consortium, while expressing ambivalence about raw milk, nevertheless stated that pasteurization can "destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health", and noted raw milk's protective effects against allergies in children.[20]
The anti-vegetarian and anti-soy views of the foundation have also been criticized in several publications.[23][24][25] Joel Fuhrman MD wrote a series of articles entitled "The truth about the Weston Price Foundation" in which he argues the Foundation is a purveyor of "nutritional myths", largely because they have failed to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence.[3] However, the soybean is listed on the FDA's poisonous plant database.[26]
The other change he made, as I pointed out, is probably worth discussion:
The foundation has been
criticised by medical and health expertscriticized by Joel Fuhrman and the FDA for "purveying misleading information" and "failing to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence".
There are other edits he's made that are currently not in dispute that others might want to look at, most of which were removed, including those made through 128.32.166.162 ( talk · contribs). -- Ronz ( talk) 05:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
With orthomolecular medicine, I was merely attempting to restore an old article, but ceased with that, as it did not follow WP:MEDRS. My recent edits to it have been WP:MEDRS compliant, and have consisted of the introduction of new meta-analyses. I accept that under WP:SYN, the poison plant database and international genomics consortium and msnbc article can be removed. I advocate for the use of criticized by Joel Fuhrman and the FDA. I have made an edit in which I removed all the problematic items I previously inserted. Pottinger's cats ( talk) 17:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes - I wanted to appeal that. The sources I use are clearly WP:MEDRS compliant, but they get reverted continuously, with no justification being given. They are reviews in mainstream journals that are totally relevant to the article. Pottinger's cats ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
They merely say, on the edit history - "I don't think these are improvements". The sources do come from reliable secondary sources and adequately controvert the position currently in the article, as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=533974374&oldid=533953100 Pottinger's cats ( talk) 22:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
As I note below - the article relies on an attempted debunking of acupuncture, hence my inclusion of the reviews controverting that negative position. Also, what is of relevance is that the reviews written by the advocate appear in mainstream journals - they are certainly notable enough for inclusion. Pottinger's cats ( talk) 22:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This is more of the same. Not so blatant, but still Pottinger's cats introduces a primary source to rebut the criticism:
John Robbins has written a critique in which he reviews the history of the Weston Price Foundation and provides evidence that Weston Price had initially recommended a vegetarian and dairy diet to his own family members as the healthiest diet, though he later became convinced through his research that a diet with meat and high animal fat supplemented by vegetables and minerals would provide optimal health.
-- Ronz ( talk) 03:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Controversy exists between the article as it stands now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques
and my edit to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=533974374&oldid=533953100
The only response in opposition to my edits is that the person who did an overview agrees with the practice. However, his substantial reviews have been published in mainstream journals, and warrant inclusion. Also, part of this article relies on a supposed debunking of acupuncture, which has been controverted with reliable reviews that I have included. I attempted to compromise by including ALL sources, both pro and con, but the pro sources were removed without justification, simply because the other editors didn't like them, even though they meet WP:MEDRS.
I have attempted to resolve this issue in a talk page, but other editors (particularly Mastcell and Bobrayner) simply revert my edits, and do not engage in meaningful dialogue. Pottinger's cats ( talk) 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
For emotional freedom techniques, I responded at the talk page. For orthomolecular medicine - my subsequent edits complied with the requests given, but included extra meta-analyses. I understand the criticisms given at the other sources. Pottinger's cats ( talk) 02:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Ancient Egyptian race controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is busy again. Previous discussions are at [24]. I've raised a couple of NPOV issues at WP:NPOVN#Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Any masochistic editors interested in the area might note that there are a few spinoffs recently created - not, like this one, on the history of the controversy, but on various controversies themselves, eg Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Asiatic Race Theory (titles need fixing - hypothesis is best and lower case of course) and others. Dougweller ( talk) 09:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
We have an editor here who is removing any commentary on her by other scholars - with the edit summary "the best source for understanding Dr. Welsing's views is her book the Isis Papers, not the biased views of others.". Dougweller ( talk) 06:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Respectfully suggest this topic be re-classified as non-fringe theory based on the following:
Knitwitted is topic-banned from all edits (both article and talk edits, in all namespaces) related to the Shakespeare authorship issue. [25] [26] [27] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyone remember this one? See Talk:Roza Bal and my new entry at WP:COIN. Dougweller ( talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Islamic golden age is a redirect to Abbasid Caliphate#Islamic Golden Age but ... Islamic Golden Age also exists - someone needs to sort this out. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know much about Islam in general, but something in this pattern of edits got my Spidey Sense tingling: [28]. There's something in the tenor and tone of these which seems to be of the "exposing the Truth that no one else knows" variety. The same basic additions were made by an IP address that I assume is the same person before he/she registerred, the edit summary here is enlightening: [29]. I could be wrong, but perhaps someone that does know more about the Quran could look into these changes and see if they have merit, or if my suspicions are correct here. Seems a bit odd. Again, I don't have the knowledge in this area to assess the situation, but something about the way in which these changes are made sent up red flags for me. -- Jayron 32 07:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
This is starting to creep back towards concealing the truth that this is woo-woo bullocks archaeology. I know we'll get the inevtable fight over it but the lead needs to but up front about the truth that this is rubbish. Mangoe ( talk) 13:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Almost entirely sourced to a website. Dougweller ( talk) 15:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
On the Christian Science article, I noticed any criticism has been deleted and there is nowhere any mention of Christian Science being a pseudoscience. Please see these references I have found:
If you read any of the above references, it is clear Mary Baker Eddy was a fraud, and Christian Science is a pseudoscientific cult. But none of this or these references are aloud on the article? Fodor Fan ( talk) 22:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There was a big fuss about this several weeks ago with (as you'll see from the Talk) User:Jimbo himself weighing in. See also this discussion on Jimbo's Talk page.
Unsurprisingly, Christian Science as a topic has attracted several editors with strong views. However, this was largely neutralized when User:SlimVirgin carried out a major re-write of the article with - in my view - exemplary skill to give us pretty much what we have now. I think it's pretty neutral, and it's currently nominated as a GA.
However, I have always believed it would be correct to characterize the healing aspect of Christian Science as (probably) pseudoscience and (almost certainly) quackery. Consensus was not with me. I view the apparent prohibition on characterizing religions (and especially pseudoreligions like Christian Science) in these terms as being a kind of subtle censorship.
Of course, one could write reams about all the crazy stuff that Eddy did -- but most of that would, I think, sit more properly in the article about her. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I've started a page User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles to keep track of all the articles relating to Sarkar, PROUT, and Ananda Marga. Please feel free to update it and refer to it. Mangoe ( talk) 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The catalog is completed, as best I can determine. It's actually more compact than I thought. There seem to be three core pieces: Sarkar and his publications, PROUT, and Ananda Marga. There is a long list of passing references at the end, but a lot of the apparent spread of things is caused by a couple of heavily used templates. My thoughts at the moment are as follows:
I invite others to look at what I've dredged up and provide their own comments. Mangoe ( talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
We have an article on a supposed internet bot called Web Bot that claims to be able predict events such as the (non-event) 2012 phenomenon. The notability of this is being disputed by User:Serendipodous, who wants to redirect to 2012 phenomenon (where it is mentioned under 2012_phenomenon#Other_catastrophes as he does not believe that this project is notable - and he is concerned that it is a scam. I reverted the undiscussed merge as I believe that the project, however dubious, has gained sufficient coverage in notable sources to warrant an article - and I believe that predictions and supposed workings goes beyond the '2012' predictions but these cannot be discussed in the merge target as they would be out of context. I recognise that the page needs to avoid endorsing the reality of this 'tool' and should avoid using dubious websites as sources, but I think this can be managed through normal editing. I would appreciate views on how to best manage this content. Fences& Windows 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There is some RS/N discussion concerning the fringiness of of some Jain notions and in particular a specific book on the matter. Mangoe ( talk) 14:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Weltmer Institute of Suggestive Therapeutics - ever see anything so in your face?
Joseph Sieber Benner Dougweller ( talk) 09:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The Benner article is an interesting case. As it says, ominiously, in the lead "Little is known of his life, and the information are not published openly to the public."
I have pecked at the article a bit and introduced a couple of sources.
Benner it seems was a businessman who bought a printing press and took-up automatic writing. He has a cult following boosted in part by Elvis Presley's interest in one of his books. A lot of the article as it stands looks like a fairly good piece of original research, with that information that is sourced, being sourced rather weakly. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Just reverted an attempt to remove criticism from this article. As the editor is actively editing I expect to be reverted myself. Dougweller ( talk) 05:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if someone could take a look at the sourcing for this one, or let me know if there is reliable sourcing for the theory. Thanks! Location ( talk) 22:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, there's a related Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems of the Day. Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcome. bobrayner ( talk) 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This board had a section about the article that got deleted here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination). There is an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One which is about the series of books in which Ra's words were published. I am concerned that this is essentially the same material under a different name. Mcewan ( talk) 14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
As a sober article on new religious movements we have Contemporary Sant Mat movements. As any regular here might guess, the articles on the various movements and gurus involved are overrun by adherents, as can be seen for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla). I'm not sure how to handle this, and it might not be entirely within our purview, but my look at these tends to find articles written by believers for potential believers. Mangoe ( talk) 19:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I've re-written Madeleine Duncan Brown to comply with Wikipedia standards regarding reliable sources. In my opinion, it may be OK to use "claim" in certain circumstances and I think this is one of them. Still, someone should probably check my work with WP:CLAIM in mind. Thanks! Location ( talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a website at http://www.verifiedfacts.org/ that generates a new conspiracy theory every time you refresh the page. No longer will Wikipedia editors have to spend long hours developing new fringe theories. With this new tool you can easily create hundreds every day! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems the article Transfer factor has become a magnet for pseudoscience claims, fueled by the economic interest of snake-oil salesmen. There was great interest and serious research into the topic before 1985 but later it became an abandoned theory. I have added the article in Category:Pseudoscience and started the discussion here: Talk:Transfer factor#Pseudoscience. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 11:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
A new user (probably Peake himself) has created this article Intrasomatic model. It is a non-notable pseudoscientific idea of Anthony Peake. (I searched for Peake, and noticed his article on wikipedia was deleted last year for being non-notable). Peake is not a scientist, but a paranormal author who has written a crazy book claiming that after death people live their lives over similar to the film groundhog day or the Truman Show in a virtual reality. Note how the Intrasomatic model has no valid references apart from his own self-published book. The same user has also copied the "model" onto the Out-of-body experience article, and has also attempted to put it on others. I think that the article is suitable to be deleted as it is non-notable, or a redirect. Fodor Fan ( talk) 04:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do not presume that it was "Peake himself"; I "copied" it into the other categories at the request of Wikipedia editors themselves, to address an Orphan citation. Here I followed instructions only to bring suspicion onto the author. Tutweiler ( talk) 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Tutweiler Tutweiler ( talk) 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if someone can take a look at Bradley Ayers and give me some idea of whether or not it is possible to make this into a credible Wikipedia article. This is yet another subject whose claim to fame is contained within his or her allegations of having seen or heard something that sheds light on who really assassinated JFK or RFK. Primary source material available at maryferrell.org suggests that the claim of working for the CIA is real, however, his actual role and claim of knowing who the assassins of JFK and RFK might have been are only backed up by his own books and the usual sources promoting fringe theories (i.e. they are unreliable). I cannot even find a reliable source reiterating the allegations. Thanks. Location ( talk) 05:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If someone has an extra minute or two, please review the last couple edits to Cord Meyer and let me know in Talk:Cord Meyer if I have summarized the source(s) properly. Thanks! Location ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I came across this funny article that presents a remote fringe theory in the words of the theory's proponents, but never actually points out that no serious historian buys it. I really wanted to divide the article into sections (one for each quotation) and add the sentence "However, this view has not achieved mainstream accepts among scholars of either Jewish or Japanese history." to the intro, but...
I don't actually have a source by a credible historian that even acknowledges this viewpoint, so I can't actually provide a source for that statement. Could someone with more expertise in this area take a look at it? Thanks!
elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The "theory" doesn't get a full articulation until McLeod in the 18th century. It was an utter fabrication paralleling other such precedents such as that relating to the indigenous peoples in the British colonies that became the United States. I'd suggest reading Parfitt's book. On p. 139 of his book Shillony writes that, "No serious historian has ever endorsed the theory that the Japanese are descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel...".-- Ubikwit ( talk) 01:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello all,
I'm concerned that the
Progressive utilization theory article may be host to some fringey content. Any chance of a second opinion? For instance, I recently tried removing some unsourced stuff about criminology and economics, which may or may not be compatible with what's written by the author of the "Progressive utilization theory", but it's definitely not a mainstream view of criminology & economics. PROUT is pretty wide-ranging so there's other stuff which appears to conflict with the mainstream of other fields... Would any of the FT:N stalwarts care to have a look?
bobrayner (
talk)
14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks as though we have a huge problem here. Searching for progressive utilization theory (apparently usually abbreviated as PROUT) led me quickly to discussion of Ananda Marga. Here's a typical reference [35] which identifies the two as more or less a single thing and identifies it as a political as well as spiritual movement. It also has some unsavory history. There aare more like this but my impression is that both articles are heavily owned by adherents. Mangoe ( talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to be the center of the whole thing and really is what should be concentrated on. I've found several different directories of modern/Hindu cults which talk about it beyond just including it in a list. There's a political component which the current article is completely ignoring and which makes the group/movement notable beyond the religious/cultic arena. I don't know that we need to apply some WP:TNT but working from the sources I've found would produce content which would hardly intersect with the current content at all, other than a few names. Mangoe ( talk) 21:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Ananda Sutram is also part of the complex of articles involved in this dispute. It would be helpful if more editors expressed views on it as well. Buddhipriya ( talk) 19:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
There are some AfDs on related articles:
Your insights would be welcome. bobrayner ( talk) 02:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Progressive utilization theory. Mangoe ( talk) 01:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think there are some more AfDs open. Has anybody got a current list? bobrayner ( talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Garamond Lethe 00:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Garamond Lethe 03:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The last batch has been put up for AfD. Details
here.
Garamond Lethe
t
c
00:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
New editor (started as an IP) trying to add fringe material to this article (which is a problem from time to time so could use more watchers). Dougweller ( talk) 17:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hu McCulluch, one of the contributors to the literature on this has been editing the article. I've been glancing at popups of diffs from time to time but not the totality of his changes, even now. A few minutes ago I deleted two paragraphs he added, one sourced to Scott Wolter's website and the other to an article of Hu's published in the fringe journal Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts. We've discussed related material before. [37] A few more eyes reviewing this would be useful. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This was a dab page, someone's turned it into an article stub. Dougweller ( talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Overunity seems like just a content fork of perpetual motion and currently includes fringey phrases like
Also 89.160.124.74 remove the existing POV, no footnotes, and fringe theory templates without discussion, while adding that Over-unity should not be mixed up specifically with "Perpetual Motion". Same IP has also changed Over-unity from a redirect of Perpetual motion to a redirect of Overunity.-- Atlantima ( talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Could anyone help out on Eteocretan language? I don't want an edit war with a user who is intent on adding his pet interpretation of this linguistics topic. I feel I have been on Wikipedia long enough to spot poor sourcing/original research, so I reverted to the last good version. I have been re-reverted too many times. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You may wonder why I'm calling this fringe when you look at the article. There's nothing obviously fringe there, or in the article of the founder, Donald Panther-Yates. But a look at their blog tells a very different story. The entry "Giants with Double-Rowed Teeth, Flattened Heads and Six Fingers" [39] is clearly fringe, and Yates is bringing out a new book The Cherokee Anomaly: How DNA, Ancient Alphabets and Religion Explain America's Largest Indian Nation, published by McFarland & Co. next year, with an introductory note by Cyclone Covey, foreword by Richard Mack Bettis. It "uncovers the Jewish and Eastern Mediterranean ancestry of the Cherokee and reveals that they originally spoke Greek before adopting the Iroquoian language of their Haudenosaunee allies while the two nations dwelt together in the Ohio Valley." [40]. See also its own website [41] and sadly, Betti's forward, [42], full of misinformation. Dougweller ( talk) 21:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
184.153.187.119 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding creationist arguments to articles and talk pages regularly since September 2012. Can someone please have a look at this? I'm too tired. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 16:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Stem cell educator ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Is anyone aware if this is an actual device/potential therapy or something equivalent to tinfoil hats? One of the previous "sources" was to a clinic that does "stem cell therapy" for everything from allergies to MS to alzheimers by subQ injections and so I have my doubts. But could use some expert's opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I posted on the talk page of WP:FRINGE, but i'm not sure whether that discussion properly belongs here or there. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Christopher Dunn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Noticed something on a Social Media today about the Pyramids of Giza producing clean electric energy. Stopped by to check out the article on Christopher Dunn the main proponent of the hypothesis. Dunn seems to have self published "The Spiritual Technology of Ancient Egypt: Sacred Science and the Mystery of Consciousness" and a documentary on the "The Giza Power Plant" both fall well within the WP:FRINGE category. Currently the article presents the information largely without verifiable or reliable sources needed to establish notability for individuals. A similar article was apparently deleted through the AFD process Christopher Dunn (engineer) as Dougweller ( talk · contribs) noted on the talk page in 2009. It is worth noting as he is cited on the List of Egyptian pyramids ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as if he is reputable source. I hope users of this board can remedy the problems with this article, for I simply dont have the time. Systems Theorist ( talk) 23:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Socialism#Removal of technical tag. Just because there are an abundance of Marxist sources claiming that Socialism is the historical stepping stone to communism, does that make it any less of a fringe view when every country calling itself socialist today is a mixed capitalist economy with a welfare state? Neo Poz ( talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A preponderance of contemporary academic sources state the cause of the mass poisoning was ergotism. Someone is insisting the academic sources can't be used and instead the incident must be attributed to "an unknown psychoactive drug", with a fringe theory blaming a secret CIA MK ULTRA program taking up most of the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Bat Creek inscription an editor has raised an issue about the article being in the categories Archaeological Forgeries, Hoaxes in the United States, and 19th Century Hoaxes. He argues that this violates NPOV and that the categories should have descriptions, which they indeed lack. He also suggests a new category, "Artifacts of disputed authenticity". My problem is that almost all archaeological hoaxes, or at least those in the US, have adherents who argue they are genuine (this is probably true of most hoaxes). This is clearly a fringe issue and covers more than one article. In this specific case current mainstream opinion is that this is a hoax. The main arguments that it is not come from the editor himself, who is an economist. Dougweller ( talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theorist" or not "conspiracy theorist"? That is the question in Mark Lane (author). Location ( talk) 06:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Does this qualify as
WP:FRINGE or maybe just a case of
WP:DUE, as marked? I am not familiar enough with the literature to tell. --
UseTheCommandLine (
talk)
19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
"the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was intended as a precursor to a similar experiment scheduled to take place in the New York City subway system, and that a subsequent uncontrolled MKULTRA experiment involved the emission of LSD and other substances from the tailpipes of CIA vehicles as they drove through New York City. Albarelli uncovered considerable evidence that the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was an MKNAOMI project code-named Project SPAN ("Pont" translates to "bridge" or "span"), and that Project SPAN involved the contamination of food supplies and the aerosolized spraying of a potent LSD mixture in Pont-Saint-Esprit." Wow, that's conclusive then! I think this is waaaay too undue. But then again, I could be mastermining the Cover Up Operation. Paul B ( talk) 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
William C. Rader ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Additional eyes requested. Thanks.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A user Belayed Reasons has been adding some fringe theories to the telepathy article. Hes also been deleting stuff from other references and adding things in which are not in the text. Does anyone know how to revert all of his edits in one go? He is making a mess of some of the article. Fodor Fan ( talk) 12:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The opening paragraph reads:
It seems a little odd to lump Christ Myth Theory (which seeks to explain the text of the new-testament in terms of mythology). I imagine that many non-Christians believe Jesus to be a non-historical figure. I think this is unfair to Christ Myth Theory which is a legitimate area of study, i.e. trying to apply the principles of mythology to the New-Testament era. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 10:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This depends on how WP:FRINGE establishes fringiness. From WP:FRINGE: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." So it's clear that fringiness is a scholarly classification. At face value, archeology and history are probably the most relevant topics. I know that there are a lot of scholars researching this topic, and while the evidence may not be definitive, I don't think we can apply WP:FRINGE in an area where ongoing research is occurring. I think we would need a high quality secondary source which makes the case that this ongoing archaeological research is not legitimate. I think this is a case where we might say "the jury is still out", and that definitive claims in either direction should not be included. aprock ( talk) 17:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Ubikwit ( talk) 18:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the hypothesis that a historical Jesus figure never existed is supported only by a very small minority of modern scholars. Bart Ehrman has stated that now virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and Robert M. Price agrees that this denial perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. Myth theorist G. A. Wells has also softened his stance on the non-existence issue. Van Voorst and separately Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.
[Unindent] From " Historicity of Jesus" (reference numbers removed):
“ | While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity, most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. | ” |
That's clarified later.
“ | The reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus along with his life story has been the subject of wide ranging debate among scholars, with no scholarly consensus.[31] In a review of the state of research Amy-Jill Levine stated that "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" and that all portraits of Jesus are subject to criticism by some group of scholars.
However, regardless of the scholarly disagreements on the reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be two historically certain facts about him. |
” |
So it would seem that little, if any of the Gospel account is considered certain. The article goes on to list a few more facts that have some degree of agreement amongst scholars, but it's not a particularly long list: "Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. He called disciples. He had a controversy at the Temple. Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem." and "Jesus was a Galilean. His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea. After his death his disciples continued. Some of his disciples were persecuted."
So... I'm not convinced that there's such universal agreement about the life of Jesus as would justify calling anything but the "Christ didn't exist at all" variant of Christ myth theory fringe. Given that Christ myth theory also encompasses "there was a person called Jesus, but almost all teachings and miracles attributed to him were either invented or symbolic references." - and that the teachings and miracles are not part of the things listed as part of the historical facts with general agreement in historians, that seems to be pretty much mainstream.
The problem we have, as Wikipedia, is that we're looking at a term everyone thinks they understand, but which is actually incredibly vague. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 15:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This bit sounds ok
By doing so, nutrigenomics aims to develop rational means to optimise nutrition, with respect to the subject's genotype.
This bit sounds less ok
" it allows the examination of how nutrients affect the thousands of genes present in the human genome. Nutrigenomics involves the characterization of gene products and the physiological function and interactions of these products. This includes how nutrients impact on the production and action of specific gene products and how these proteins in turn affect the response to nutrients."
The references look not-good. And having a quick look on the WWW shows me that a lot of people who use the word "nutrigenomics" also use words like "reiki" or "healing energy" and so on.
Is "nutrigenomics" valid science with fringe hangers-on (like anything quantum)? Or is it bunkum?
-- 178.103.43.176 ( talk) 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a very confusing system. :-/
There is currently an AfD on Heim theory. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC).
There is a lot of discussion, at Jimbo's page, NPOVN and Christian Science as to whether it's neutral to call Christian Science pseudoscience in connection with it's positions on Medicine and Science. More knowledgeable input welcome, IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The OP misstates the issue -- which is that should Wikipedia's voice be used to call a religion a "pseudoscience" and not even use the word "religion" in the lead? The word "religion" was, in fact, removed after it was suggested to be added to the lead. There is no issue of "fringe" here except insofar as all religions are "fringe" to someone. Nor do I find an aside about Astrology to be particularly on point here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a fringe belief system insofar as it contradicts science is outside the remit of this noticeboard; that psuedoscientific beliefs are part of a religion is neither an excuse nor surprising. CS beliefs are pseudoscience just as much as creationism or scientology are, though only the parts that actually attempt to challenge science. Sædon talk 02:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
From List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Religious and spiritual beliefs:
{{
cite magazine}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total Immersion is to swimming as ChiRunning is to running. The founder appears to be a successful promoter of the technique in that TI has a large web presence, however, I am having difficult finding " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My inclination is to go to Afd with it, but I thought I would check in here first to see if anyone is able to locate any reliable secondary sources in which a proper stub could be salvaged. Thanks! Location ( talk) 05:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
... yet again. "Restoring balance", not-remotely-MEDRS compliant sources, baroque displays of straw men, etc, etc. Skinwalker ( talk) 04:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this guy meets our notability criteria. If you look for him in Google books you find mention of his name in various fringe books, but not much else. He is used, or rather I think misused, in a variety of articles. Ran into this when I found the website [yurileveratto.com/] being spammed which led me to a group of non-notable articles - Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress - all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratt and his personal website which I am taking to AfD. Dougweller ( talk) 15:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Coincidence? Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Leveratto. Dougweller ( talk) 14:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Claims that rods have been "discovered" in Malaysia published a few days ago in a Malaysian newspaper have been added as "new information" to the article. I believe this material was added in good faith, so I've left it in, slightly expanded for context. However after carefully reading the story, I find its claims to be wildly uncharacteristic of a WP:RS reliable source. It states as fact that "rods" have never been physically or scientifically explained, that insects have no ability to turn at extreme speed, and names someone called "Matthew Lazenby @ Jigger" as the discoverer of such wisdom. My instinct at this point is to remove this questionable "report" from the article, but I can't tell if the source, dailyexpress.com, is actually a reliable source, or the Malaysian equivalent of the Weekly World News. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Dougweller ( talk) 16:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yet another astrology fork: Domicile (astrology) - and the only source cited is a entirely unremarkable website [10] with no indication of why it should have any particular credibility, even to the 'believers'. If 'domicile' in this context means something different from ' House (astrology)', it is unclear, and the latter article at least cites a few more sources. I can see no reason why the former article couldn't be merged into 'house' - or at least, the parts from 'domicile' which can actually be sourced to something better than 'some bloke on the internet'. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
A few extra eyes on James H. Fetzer would be appreciated as there have been a few recent attempt to add unreliable and primary source material to the article. Thanks! Location ( talk) 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing issues discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#EA WorldView and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors. Location ( talk) 17:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Psychotronics was recently (re)created following an Articles for Creation request, and apparently translated from the Spanish although the Spanish article is a lot shorter. From a (very) quick glance, it looks OK with properly formatted references etc. But it's appallingly badly written, filled with typical fringe bollocks and, most importantly, draws on a host of sources which I don't think are likely to be held up to be reliable. Some of the sources are published books but, for example, published by "The Theosophical Publishing House".
I feel the entire article is beyond salvation and just needs deleting as fringe-cruft, but am getting bogged down in trying to work out what is reliable, if anything.
Perhaps someone else could take a look at it? GDallimore ( Talk) 01:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I see that the article Parapsychology, is still changing since the beggining (17:04, September 29, 2001), even quite naively nowadays, up to a quite prolonged edition, please see: [11], and its unreliable references 127- 129... perhaps the article Parapsychology is not the best reference to accude after deleting mine, which has been criticized because of mistakes such as those already mentioned by GDallimore... aside that possibility of deletion, realize that Psychotronics is a topic that deserves special attention due to the extension of the other topic. I insist that Wikipedians must be restricted to the same policies, in order to edit parallely the same Wikipedia. I disagree to GDallimore, in starting the article according to your point of view about "Psychotronics"... it was accepted and rated as C-Class by SarahStierch, it wasn't so wrong!.. you already deleted even the patents!..-- Paritto (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
(Off topic comment moved to my talk page) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Crop circle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has, for as long as I can remember, been a battleground. Every time we pare it back to reflect the views of the reality-based community (circles are almost all man-made as pranks, those which are not have prosaic explanations), along come the "cereologists" to promote the idea that the scientific consensus view is in some way controversial - what Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. described as "the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it."
Latest problem user is Stochastikos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has virtually no contributions to Wikipedia other than to try to boost the paranormal side in the crop circle article.
I am now warning him that per previous consensus, continuing in the same vein may get him topic-banned form crop circle and potentially any other article on fringe science or pseudoscience. Guy ( Help!) 20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
My post was probably getting somewhat off topic for this board, whose aim is to alert people. Yet, I think it is good to have a big picture as one does things. So I will stop now, after pointing out a couple of issues. Regarding Bhny's comment, yes, Wikipedia is absolutely better than the chaos called the websphere where Elvis is still alive and making crop circles. But I do not have (and do not know of anyone who does) any idea of how rampant fringe is within Wikipedia and how it will compares to tightly managed systems such as Quora. Only time will tell. Regarding Guy's point about persisting on this board, I totally support any effort to fend off fringe. Yet I think we do need to be realistic. So again, only time will tell, but I have for long hoped (and suggested on WP:VP, etc.) for much less tolerance for fringe, and faster expulsion via "rapid Rfc/U" for persistent fringe editors. But one thing I am ready to bet on: given the diverse nature of editor views, major Wiki-policy changes are pretty hard to implement now. History2007 ( talk) 22:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I wondering if it might be helpful to create a fringe theory wikiproject under whose auspices this noticeboard would then be placed, and which could tag articles as being under its purview. Mangoe ( talk) 16:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
A statement in Mark Lane (author) reads:
In this context, "ignored", means "intentionally disregarded", implying that the Warren Commission was involved in a conspiracy to suppress evidence regarding the assassination of JFK. I have attempted in different ways to change "ignore" to "not interviewed" or attribute the term "ignored" to the original author from which the statement was taken (i.e. R. Andrew Kiel in J. Edgar Hoover. The Father of the Cold War. How His Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup and Escalation of the Vietnam War) with no success. Good luck finding information on Kiel to determine if he is an expert on Hoover, but from the snippets that can be gleaned within GoogleBooks, the book does appear to be conspiracy oriented. [Edit: All I can find on Kiel is that he "teaches United States History at a senior high school in Ohio".] Ideas on how this should be addressed? Location ( talk) 22:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow. You really went there? I'm going to remind you once, nicely, to please refrain from commenting on editors. When I'm not editing articles the likes of Chuck E. Cheese's or Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire, or arguing vociferously against editors at the Conspiracy theory article who are attempting to legitimize their crackpot and extreme theory-crafting, I do indeed dabble in controversial political subject matter. That experience has taught me that when an editor can't make a reasoned argument about content and edits, and instead resorts to attacking editors, nothing good will follow. Let's not do that again, okay?
Correction: Xenophrenic does not seem to think that. Xenophrenic thinks that if an apparently reliable source is not determined to be unreliable, and an assertion from that source stands uncontradicted by other reliable sources, the assertion should be accepted as uncontested fact. See the difference? So either show that the (Kiel) source doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, or produce a reliable source that conveys different or contrary information. (You'll note that I already suggested this above.)
Correction: No, I did not misstate Wikipedia policy. Policy says that we do not present fact as opinion (and "attributing" an assertion as "According to 'source'..." conveys that it is merely opinion held by that source). I see that you omitted an explanation of how I "misstated" policy, so I anxiously look forward to your justification.
That is an interesting assertion. I doubt that I would have taken issue with the attribution of information from Kiel if similar attribution was applied to content in the article from Bugliosi, Moore, et al. But it wasn't. And since no one has raised the reliability issue of Kiel at WP:RSN, nor provided sourced information contradicting Kiel (and Lane, and de Antonio, and others?), there appears to me to be a selective application of "common sense" here.
Please note that I share some of the concerns expressed above about the author (Kiel - not exactly widely published), the book (with its provocative title), and the publisher (a 'University' press not tied to a specific university?) -- but at the same time, it can be said that the source is from an academic, published by a specialist in "high-quality research and textbooks", and is heavily annotated and footnoted with an almost 100-page bibliography. You really should raise the reliability concern in the appropriate venue. Also, please note that the content under discussion asserts merely that the WC bypassed certain witness testimony for whatever reasons (and Paul B mentions several probable ones above), and does not state or imply that the WC did so as part of a "conspiracy to suppress evidence", as suggested above.
I would like to second that request. In addition, I would like to remind editors to refrain from making edits on the material being discussed while issues and concerns remain unresolved. If your need to edit war is that great, while an unconcluded discussion is ongoing, perhaps a diversion is in order. Xenophrenic ( talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to request that this conversation be narrowed to a discussion of how we at Wikipedia should handle fringe views concerning the Warren Commission, with a possible expansion into a discussion of how we at Wikipedia should handle fringe political views in general. Several of the issues brought up by Xenophrenic above are outside of the scope of the fringe theories noticeboard. I advise not responding here to these off-topic side issues even if you believe that they are incorrect. I advise instead discussing the reliability of the sources on the reliable sources noticeboard, discussing the content or the article on the article talk page, and refocusing this thread on a discussion of Wikipedia should handle fringe views concerning the Warren Commission and other political fringe views. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This Friday night the History Channel presents 'America Unearthed' "n AMERICA UNEARTHED, forensic geologist Scott Wolter, a real-life Indiana Jones, will reveal that the history we all learned in school may not always be the whole story. Across the country, ancient symbols, religious relics and unexplained artifacts suggest that civilizations from around the world have left their mark for us to find today. Wolter not only digs through the surprising burial ground that is America for arcaheological secrets, but he also uncovers compelling evidence that pre-dates the official "discovery" of the New World and turns a lot of what we think we know about American history on its head. America Unearthed proves there is a lot we don't know about our past, and that people have gone to great lengths to cover up these mysteries." [13]. It will also include claims that the Mayas visited Georgia. Dougweller ( talk) 19:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There is now an edit war in which a new account, who appears to be claiming to be Wolter himself, is removing all criticism. Paul B ( talk) 15:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced yet this this author is notable. I'm surprised at the number of links that have been found so far [16]. Google shows up many more. [17]. Even found Philip Coppens Dead (quickly deleted). His death may increase this. There may be times when it's appropriate to use him, but if anyone has spare time they might want to check some of these sometime. Dougweller ( talk) 16:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
He led me to this. Does it seem like a reputable publication to anyone else? If so, I may not nominate it for deletion. Deb ( talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
After a bit of googling, came to the conclusion that it is notable, so I have added some third-party references. Deb ( talk) 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting article in Slate:
Their conclusion:
"Given this history, it's easy to understand why fanatical devotees gravitate to unorthodox approaches to fusion energy, be they cold-fusion moonbattery or schemes touted by startup companies with more cash than brains. The mainstream scientists who've been pursuing the dream have left us with little more than a thicket of delusions and broken promises. And, if one is to believe them now, after six decades of work, the clean, nearly limitless power of fusion is still 20 years away. At this rate, it will always be." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor here is adding material from Robert Schoch and removing material by Ken Feder [19] on the grounds that " Feder is not a primary source and is only repeating the opinion of someone else and is redundant regardless. Find a primary source such as Lehner is you want ot add to this topic.)" This is also a breach of NPOV. Dougweller ( talk) 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
First, I'm inclined to move this bio back to Papus given that this is the common name used to refer to this seminal hermeticism proponent. Second, the article is rather sad, and is at present dominated by a "just-so" story about how he predicted the death of Tsar Nicholas II. Mangoe ( talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Editing at this crapola Discovery Channel exposé is threatening to pick up again. Really it needs to be run over with a lawnmower as I am guessing right off the bat that nobody in the field really takes the claims seriously. Mangoe ( talk) 14:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I put merge templates on the article for the documentary and the book and argue that they should be redirected to the article on the tomb itself. I think putting all important information in one place better follows WP:NPOV policy as far as undue weight, content forks, and so forth. In practice it should be more purge than merge. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone make heads or tails of this? I think something might have been lost in translation. Does not appear to be notable to me, but wanted to check here before AfDing it. a13ean ( talk) 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't figure it out either, but it does appear to be quite popular: [ http://www.google.com/search?q="Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U" ] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that an uncorroborated 2007 interpretation of a small subset of the works of John Wilkins, a 17th century English clergyman and natural philosopher, by the late Pat Naughtin, an Australian metrication campaigner also known as Mr. Metrication, is being used (both directly and indirectly) to support the notion that the present day metric system was invented, not by the French at the end of the 18th century as is the traditional and mainstream historical view, but by the said John Wilkins in the mid 17th century.
My curiosity was aroused yesterday when I came across the claim in the " International System of Units" article that those in France who developed the metric system in the 1790s "used a number of principles first proposed by the English cleric John Wilkins in 1668". This assertion was not supported by the cited reference, which was actually a citation referring to a scanned copy of part of a 1668 essay by Wilkins, and a "translation" of it by Pat Naughtin - hosted on the "Metric Matters" website, the website of the said Pat Naughtin. I then decided to look for other links to John Wilkins.
Next I came across him in " Metric system". In the history section there I found this: "The idea of a metric system was proposed by John Wilkins, first secretary of the Royal Society of London in 1668." This was again accompanied by a cite of Pat Naughtin's scan and "translation" of part of Wilkins's essay and also by a cite linking to a BBC video reporting that Naughtin claimed to have discovered, in an ancient book, that Wilkins had invented the metric system. This was now getting even more intriguing.
I also found similar claims, supported only by Naughtin's "translation" or the BBC report about it in " Metre", " History of the metric system", " England" and " Kilogram" and totally unsupported in " Lists of British inventions".
In each of those articles I tried to "neutralise" or water-down the claims for Wilkins's role, leaving the possibility that he had described a decimal system, but removing the (explicit and implicit) implications that he had invented the actual metric system of today. This didn't go down too well with another editor though, who came back with some other references. Each of the new references though, either drew directly from Naughtin's interpretation of Wilkins's essay, or indirectly via the website of the UK Metric Association (UKMA, a single-issue metrication pressure group) who cite Naughtin's interpretation.
I would like to hear the opinions of those here as to whether Naughtin's interpretation of Wilkins's work (and direct and indirect references to it) should be deemed to be a fringe view or whether it can now be accepted as the mainstream view on this important aspect of the history of the metric system.
The references:
MeasureIT ( talk) 18:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, I am the “other editor” mentioned by User:MeasureIT. He did not have the courtesy to let me know about this discussion (I had notified the 3RR noticeboard about his behaviour shortly before he posted here). I would like to raise a few points:
In response to User:Mangoe, we can cite Wilkins for a lot more than just decimalisation – his proposal, apart from the use of a pendulum rather than the earth’s meridian and the use of a standard set of prefixes encompassed every other aspect of the metric system as first introduced by the French a century later. I agree that we cannot state that he “invented” the metric system or that he was the first, but we do not know how much of his proposal was taken on board by Jefferson or by the French and how much they developed independently of Wilkins.
All that Naughtin did was to publicise to the world of metrology one chapter from a book, the whole of which was regarded by philosophers is being a good first attempt at classifying many things in nature. I propose that Wilkins should be included in the List of British Inventions with a caveat that this is the earliest ‘’known’’proposal and cite reliable sources (of which there are many) that give the credit to Mouton.
Martinvl ( talk) 08:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is the use of black and white statements like "So-and-so invented the metric system". This is the way of speaking that the media like; everything is the best this, the first that, the most wonderful whatever. It sells TV shows. We should use less hype. Wilkins proposed a system of measures based on powers of ten, which is very interesting, but he didn't design the other main features of the future "metric system". Just state the plain facts. Zero talk 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
measurement." Nothing about being a mover, let alone being a prime mover of the metric system. Agricolae ( talk) 21:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
A book, published in 2012 by Terry Quinn FRS (former director of the BIPM) ( extracts here) credits Wilkins as having proposed a system that was essentially the same as the French decimal system. Quinn make no mention of Mouton. I think that this settles the argument. Martinvl ( talk) 08:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Two more comments:
Nothing new under the sun... It seems this argument has been around longer than we thought. In 1805, just 10 years after the French adopted the metric system, a letter appeared in the Philosophical Magazine of London (Vol. 21, No. 81, Feb 1805, pp. 163–173) [23] arguing that all the essentials were invented by Wilkins and decrying the fact that it was implemented by the French without acknowledging the British priority. After quoting at length from Wilkins' book, it says (p.170):
Is that great or what? Incidentally on page 173 there is an intriguing comment "the decimal division of weights and measures has long been established in China" which shouldn't be hard to find a modern citation for if it is true. Zero talk 15:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: the closed discussion below includes notes to the effect that discussion should move to the article talk page but instead, as mentioned above, a whole new page has been created. Is this a good idea?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This noticeboard is not the appropriate place for editors of Genetic studies on Jews to continue lengthy discussions, which should normally take place on the article talk page. Regular contributors to FTN, uninvolved in this or related articles. have made several diverse and reasonable points concerning the original question, without reaching a clear consensus. At the moment the discussion has started to become a little too personalised and is swamping this noticeboard. If it must be continued here, please could it be moved to a subpage? Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 17:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate more eyes on Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thought Field Therapy, and Tapas Acupressure Technique; there appears to be an effort to make these fringe psychology topics more mainstream by use of non-independent sources and WP:SYNTHing together sources. Thanks. Yobol ( talk) 22:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Fringe conference masquerading as a serious study of prehistory. Dougweller ( talk) 12:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
An article on a theory regarding what seems to be a variant form on the Gospel of the Hebrews hypothesized by some modern scholars, and an existing spinout article on that theory, is currently being discussed at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#New merge tag, where that spinout article is being suggested for merging into the main article. The questions so far as I can tell are, basically, about whether the spinout article contains SYNTH problems as well as, possibly, NOTABILITY problems, and whether it ultimately should be merged into the other article. Almost all articles relating to early Christianity around here deal in some way with the beliefs of individual editors, sometimes regarding ideas which have achieved some degree of notability, sometimes not. In any event, I believe it would very much be in the interests of everyone if some knowledgable editors from this board reviewed the material and probably discussed the matter on the talk page of the article. John Carter ( talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Of interest:
Talk:Panspermia#Chandra Wickramasinghe's fringe science
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Fossil Diatoms in a New Carbonaceous Meteorite
--
Guy Macon (
talk)
21:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The alleged Talmud has a J instead of an E because extra-terrestrials told Billy Meier to put it there. Hoax creator's article needs, work, Talmud needs either an AfD or a para in Meier's article and turning it into a redirect. Dougweller ( talk) 11:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Editors are pressing Stephen Tonchen's birther theories as meriting equal and opposite coverage to the usual view. It as been suggested we should be involved in this; discussion is taking place on the article talk page. Mangoe ( talk) 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe The Natural-Born-Clause article accurately reflects contemporary legal and popular thought; however, all may be moot if original understanding of the founders is what Birther legal scholars (named under Major Revision Needed) claim. These are unified and therefore strong in voice; they see “constitutional heresy,” and they have never yet seen “their day” in the higher courts. Perhaps they won’t. However, if they do, the Supreme Court will look intensely for original intent. Is the dominant contemporary legal-and-popular-thought skyscraper built on a weak foundation? Even if a minority opinion saw it their way, heavy odds are on the side of scandal in a politically charged combustion chamber ready for that spark--see the talk page argument-- especially if any attempt is made to “suspend” the Constitution in the tumult of the financial days ahead. (2013 is not going to be a nice year in the bond market (four times larger than the stock market with a popped bubble bigger than 2008 and hyperinflation the moment interest rates rise.) I wish this were exaggeration; it’s not.) The smaller courts seem to have sensed this higher court possibility; the VAST majority of decisions have AVOIDED comment, LIKE AVOIDING THE PLAGUE. Wikipedia would want to be safely in the NPOV zone. That’s the point of “Major Revision Needed”—the dispute is real and threatens, however “fringe” an editor or a consensus of editors may have thought the issue was in the past. Be sure a “fringe” label is not just a no-substance, fraud-admitting “Alinsky or an excuse for one-sided POV!”
As I said on the talk page, I don’t have the time to do it justice. Somebody else will have to do it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthebetter ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting article from Slate Magazine's Bad Astronomy blog: No, Diatoms Have Not Been Found in a Meteorite. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"It has been proposed in this section that Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts be renamed and moved to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses." Dougweller ( talk) 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, maybe this skewed, clueless discussion explains the absurd voting behaviour in the RfC. Since when is the Norse settlement in Canada "dismissed by people like, you know, archaeologists"? And pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and America, while not actually proved, is such a promising hypothesis due to the sweet potato connection (not just the plant, also the word for it) that a lot of serious researchers seem to be looking for this right now. The only thing that is wrong with the title is the silly plural. Before Gun Powder Ma moved the article to the "hypotheses" title in July without consensus, the title was Pre-columbian transoceanic contact, singular. But then the move wasn't undone correctly.
Has the fringe noticeboard become the new playground for the group voters who used to populate WP:ARS in order to cast mindless keep votes at deletion discussions? How about reading an article before voting on it? The fringe in it is clearly marked as such, maybe even too clearly. Hans Adler 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Edits by Pottinger's cats ( talk · contribs) (added originally through 128.114.105.66 ( talk · contribs)) are blatant WP:SYN violations from my viewpoint, as well as NPOV and FRINGE. Discussion (what there is of it) here).
Basically, Pottinger's cats wants to rebut criticism of the foundation with his own original research, sourced by primary sources (changes presented below in bold):
They also point out that prior to the widespread use of pasteurization, many diseases were commonly transmitted by raw milk, while they made up less than 1% of food and water contamination disease outbreaks by 2005[17][18], though the FDA's own source data shows that for Listeria contamination, raw, unpasteurized milk had 3.1 cases, pasteurized milk had 90.8 cases, and Deli meats had 1598.7 cases.
The director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration division of plant- and dairy-food safety, John Sheehan, called the organization's claims on the health benefits and safety of raw milk "false, devoid of scientific support, and misleading to consumers"[2], though an article in the International Milk Genomics Consortium, while expressing ambivalence about raw milk, nevertheless stated that pasteurization can "destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health", and noted raw milk's protective effects against allergies in children.[20]
The anti-vegetarian and anti-soy views of the foundation have also been criticized in several publications.[23][24][25] Joel Fuhrman MD wrote a series of articles entitled "The truth about the Weston Price Foundation" in which he argues the Foundation is a purveyor of "nutritional myths", largely because they have failed to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence.[3] However, the soybean is listed on the FDA's poisonous plant database.[26]
The other change he made, as I pointed out, is probably worth discussion:
The foundation has been
criticised by medical and health expertscriticized by Joel Fuhrman and the FDA for "purveying misleading information" and "failing to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence".
There are other edits he's made that are currently not in dispute that others might want to look at, most of which were removed, including those made through 128.32.166.162 ( talk · contribs). -- Ronz ( talk) 05:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
With orthomolecular medicine, I was merely attempting to restore an old article, but ceased with that, as it did not follow WP:MEDRS. My recent edits to it have been WP:MEDRS compliant, and have consisted of the introduction of new meta-analyses. I accept that under WP:SYN, the poison plant database and international genomics consortium and msnbc article can be removed. I advocate for the use of criticized by Joel Fuhrman and the FDA. I have made an edit in which I removed all the problematic items I previously inserted. Pottinger's cats ( talk) 17:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes - I wanted to appeal that. The sources I use are clearly WP:MEDRS compliant, but they get reverted continuously, with no justification being given. They are reviews in mainstream journals that are totally relevant to the article. Pottinger's cats ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
They merely say, on the edit history - "I don't think these are improvements". The sources do come from reliable secondary sources and adequately controvert the position currently in the article, as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=533974374&oldid=533953100 Pottinger's cats ( talk) 22:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
As I note below - the article relies on an attempted debunking of acupuncture, hence my inclusion of the reviews controverting that negative position. Also, what is of relevance is that the reviews written by the advocate appear in mainstream journals - they are certainly notable enough for inclusion. Pottinger's cats ( talk) 22:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This is more of the same. Not so blatant, but still Pottinger's cats introduces a primary source to rebut the criticism:
John Robbins has written a critique in which he reviews the history of the Weston Price Foundation and provides evidence that Weston Price had initially recommended a vegetarian and dairy diet to his own family members as the healthiest diet, though he later became convinced through his research that a diet with meat and high animal fat supplemented by vegetables and minerals would provide optimal health.
-- Ronz ( talk) 03:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Controversy exists between the article as it stands now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques
and my edit to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=533974374&oldid=533953100
The only response in opposition to my edits is that the person who did an overview agrees with the practice. However, his substantial reviews have been published in mainstream journals, and warrant inclusion. Also, part of this article relies on a supposed debunking of acupuncture, which has been controverted with reliable reviews that I have included. I attempted to compromise by including ALL sources, both pro and con, but the pro sources were removed without justification, simply because the other editors didn't like them, even though they meet WP:MEDRS.
I have attempted to resolve this issue in a talk page, but other editors (particularly Mastcell and Bobrayner) simply revert my edits, and do not engage in meaningful dialogue. Pottinger's cats ( talk) 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
For emotional freedom techniques, I responded at the talk page. For orthomolecular medicine - my subsequent edits complied with the requests given, but included extra meta-analyses. I understand the criticisms given at the other sources. Pottinger's cats ( talk) 02:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Ancient Egyptian race controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is busy again. Previous discussions are at [24]. I've raised a couple of NPOV issues at WP:NPOVN#Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Any masochistic editors interested in the area might note that there are a few spinoffs recently created - not, like this one, on the history of the controversy, but on various controversies themselves, eg Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Asiatic Race Theory (titles need fixing - hypothesis is best and lower case of course) and others. Dougweller ( talk) 09:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
We have an editor here who is removing any commentary on her by other scholars - with the edit summary "the best source for understanding Dr. Welsing's views is her book the Isis Papers, not the biased views of others.". Dougweller ( talk) 06:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Respectfully suggest this topic be re-classified as non-fringe theory based on the following:
Knitwitted is topic-banned from all edits (both article and talk edits, in all namespaces) related to the Shakespeare authorship issue. [25] [26] [27] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyone remember this one? See Talk:Roza Bal and my new entry at WP:COIN. Dougweller ( talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Islamic golden age is a redirect to Abbasid Caliphate#Islamic Golden Age but ... Islamic Golden Age also exists - someone needs to sort this out. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know much about Islam in general, but something in this pattern of edits got my Spidey Sense tingling: [28]. There's something in the tenor and tone of these which seems to be of the "exposing the Truth that no one else knows" variety. The same basic additions were made by an IP address that I assume is the same person before he/she registerred, the edit summary here is enlightening: [29]. I could be wrong, but perhaps someone that does know more about the Quran could look into these changes and see if they have merit, or if my suspicions are correct here. Seems a bit odd. Again, I don't have the knowledge in this area to assess the situation, but something about the way in which these changes are made sent up red flags for me. -- Jayron 32 07:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
This is starting to creep back towards concealing the truth that this is woo-woo bullocks archaeology. I know we'll get the inevtable fight over it but the lead needs to but up front about the truth that this is rubbish. Mangoe ( talk) 13:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Almost entirely sourced to a website. Dougweller ( talk) 15:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
On the Christian Science article, I noticed any criticism has been deleted and there is nowhere any mention of Christian Science being a pseudoscience. Please see these references I have found:
If you read any of the above references, it is clear Mary Baker Eddy was a fraud, and Christian Science is a pseudoscientific cult. But none of this or these references are aloud on the article? Fodor Fan ( talk) 22:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There was a big fuss about this several weeks ago with (as you'll see from the Talk) User:Jimbo himself weighing in. See also this discussion on Jimbo's Talk page.
Unsurprisingly, Christian Science as a topic has attracted several editors with strong views. However, this was largely neutralized when User:SlimVirgin carried out a major re-write of the article with - in my view - exemplary skill to give us pretty much what we have now. I think it's pretty neutral, and it's currently nominated as a GA.
However, I have always believed it would be correct to characterize the healing aspect of Christian Science as (probably) pseudoscience and (almost certainly) quackery. Consensus was not with me. I view the apparent prohibition on characterizing religions (and especially pseudoreligions like Christian Science) in these terms as being a kind of subtle censorship.
Of course, one could write reams about all the crazy stuff that Eddy did -- but most of that would, I think, sit more properly in the article about her. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I've started a page User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles to keep track of all the articles relating to Sarkar, PROUT, and Ananda Marga. Please feel free to update it and refer to it. Mangoe ( talk) 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The catalog is completed, as best I can determine. It's actually more compact than I thought. There seem to be three core pieces: Sarkar and his publications, PROUT, and Ananda Marga. There is a long list of passing references at the end, but a lot of the apparent spread of things is caused by a couple of heavily used templates. My thoughts at the moment are as follows:
I invite others to look at what I've dredged up and provide their own comments. Mangoe ( talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
We have an article on a supposed internet bot called Web Bot that claims to be able predict events such as the (non-event) 2012 phenomenon. The notability of this is being disputed by User:Serendipodous, who wants to redirect to 2012 phenomenon (where it is mentioned under 2012_phenomenon#Other_catastrophes as he does not believe that this project is notable - and he is concerned that it is a scam. I reverted the undiscussed merge as I believe that the project, however dubious, has gained sufficient coverage in notable sources to warrant an article - and I believe that predictions and supposed workings goes beyond the '2012' predictions but these cannot be discussed in the merge target as they would be out of context. I recognise that the page needs to avoid endorsing the reality of this 'tool' and should avoid using dubious websites as sources, but I think this can be managed through normal editing. I would appreciate views on how to best manage this content. Fences& Windows 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There is some RS/N discussion concerning the fringiness of of some Jain notions and in particular a specific book on the matter. Mangoe ( talk) 14:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Weltmer Institute of Suggestive Therapeutics - ever see anything so in your face?
Joseph Sieber Benner Dougweller ( talk) 09:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The Benner article is an interesting case. As it says, ominiously, in the lead "Little is known of his life, and the information are not published openly to the public."
I have pecked at the article a bit and introduced a couple of sources.
Benner it seems was a businessman who bought a printing press and took-up automatic writing. He has a cult following boosted in part by Elvis Presley's interest in one of his books. A lot of the article as it stands looks like a fairly good piece of original research, with that information that is sourced, being sourced rather weakly. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Just reverted an attempt to remove criticism from this article. As the editor is actively editing I expect to be reverted myself. Dougweller ( talk) 05:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if someone could take a look at the sourcing for this one, or let me know if there is reliable sourcing for the theory. Thanks! Location ( talk) 22:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, there's a related Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems of the Day. Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcome. bobrayner ( talk) 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This board had a section about the article that got deleted here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination). There is an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One which is about the series of books in which Ra's words were published. I am concerned that this is essentially the same material under a different name. Mcewan ( talk) 14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
As a sober article on new religious movements we have Contemporary Sant Mat movements. As any regular here might guess, the articles on the various movements and gurus involved are overrun by adherents, as can be seen for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla). I'm not sure how to handle this, and it might not be entirely within our purview, but my look at these tends to find articles written by believers for potential believers. Mangoe ( talk) 19:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I've re-written Madeleine Duncan Brown to comply with Wikipedia standards regarding reliable sources. In my opinion, it may be OK to use "claim" in certain circumstances and I think this is one of them. Still, someone should probably check my work with WP:CLAIM in mind. Thanks! Location ( talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a website at http://www.verifiedfacts.org/ that generates a new conspiracy theory every time you refresh the page. No longer will Wikipedia editors have to spend long hours developing new fringe theories. With this new tool you can easily create hundreds every day! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems the article Transfer factor has become a magnet for pseudoscience claims, fueled by the economic interest of snake-oil salesmen. There was great interest and serious research into the topic before 1985 but later it became an abandoned theory. I have added the article in Category:Pseudoscience and started the discussion here: Talk:Transfer factor#Pseudoscience. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 11:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
A new user (probably Peake himself) has created this article Intrasomatic model. It is a non-notable pseudoscientific idea of Anthony Peake. (I searched for Peake, and noticed his article on wikipedia was deleted last year for being non-notable). Peake is not a scientist, but a paranormal author who has written a crazy book claiming that after death people live their lives over similar to the film groundhog day or the Truman Show in a virtual reality. Note how the Intrasomatic model has no valid references apart from his own self-published book. The same user has also copied the "model" onto the Out-of-body experience article, and has also attempted to put it on others. I think that the article is suitable to be deleted as it is non-notable, or a redirect. Fodor Fan ( talk) 04:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do not presume that it was "Peake himself"; I "copied" it into the other categories at the request of Wikipedia editors themselves, to address an Orphan citation. Here I followed instructions only to bring suspicion onto the author. Tutweiler ( talk) 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Tutweiler Tutweiler ( talk) 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if someone can take a look at Bradley Ayers and give me some idea of whether or not it is possible to make this into a credible Wikipedia article. This is yet another subject whose claim to fame is contained within his or her allegations of having seen or heard something that sheds light on who really assassinated JFK or RFK. Primary source material available at maryferrell.org suggests that the claim of working for the CIA is real, however, his actual role and claim of knowing who the assassins of JFK and RFK might have been are only backed up by his own books and the usual sources promoting fringe theories (i.e. they are unreliable). I cannot even find a reliable source reiterating the allegations. Thanks. Location ( talk) 05:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If someone has an extra minute or two, please review the last couple edits to Cord Meyer and let me know in Talk:Cord Meyer if I have summarized the source(s) properly. Thanks! Location ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I came across this funny article that presents a remote fringe theory in the words of the theory's proponents, but never actually points out that no serious historian buys it. I really wanted to divide the article into sections (one for each quotation) and add the sentence "However, this view has not achieved mainstream accepts among scholars of either Jewish or Japanese history." to the intro, but...
I don't actually have a source by a credible historian that even acknowledges this viewpoint, so I can't actually provide a source for that statement. Could someone with more expertise in this area take a look at it? Thanks!
elvenscout742 ( talk) 08:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The "theory" doesn't get a full articulation until McLeod in the 18th century. It was an utter fabrication paralleling other such precedents such as that relating to the indigenous peoples in the British colonies that became the United States. I'd suggest reading Parfitt's book. On p. 139 of his book Shillony writes that, "No serious historian has ever endorsed the theory that the Japanese are descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel...".-- Ubikwit ( talk) 01:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello all,
I'm concerned that the
Progressive utilization theory article may be host to some fringey content. Any chance of a second opinion? For instance, I recently tried removing some unsourced stuff about criminology and economics, which may or may not be compatible with what's written by the author of the "Progressive utilization theory", but it's definitely not a mainstream view of criminology & economics. PROUT is pretty wide-ranging so there's other stuff which appears to conflict with the mainstream of other fields... Would any of the FT:N stalwarts care to have a look?
bobrayner (
talk)
14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks as though we have a huge problem here. Searching for progressive utilization theory (apparently usually abbreviated as PROUT) led me quickly to discussion of Ananda Marga. Here's a typical reference [35] which identifies the two as more or less a single thing and identifies it as a political as well as spiritual movement. It also has some unsavory history. There aare more like this but my impression is that both articles are heavily owned by adherents. Mangoe ( talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to be the center of the whole thing and really is what should be concentrated on. I've found several different directories of modern/Hindu cults which talk about it beyond just including it in a list. There's a political component which the current article is completely ignoring and which makes the group/movement notable beyond the religious/cultic arena. I don't know that we need to apply some WP:TNT but working from the sources I've found would produce content which would hardly intersect with the current content at all, other than a few names. Mangoe ( talk) 21:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Ananda Sutram is also part of the complex of articles involved in this dispute. It would be helpful if more editors expressed views on it as well. Buddhipriya ( talk) 19:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
There are some AfDs on related articles:
Your insights would be welcome. bobrayner ( talk) 02:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Progressive utilization theory. Mangoe ( talk) 01:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think there are some more AfDs open. Has anybody got a current list? bobrayner ( talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Garamond Lethe 00:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Garamond Lethe 03:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The last batch has been put up for AfD. Details
here.
Garamond Lethe
t
c
00:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
New editor (started as an IP) trying to add fringe material to this article (which is a problem from time to time so could use more watchers). Dougweller ( talk) 17:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hu McCulluch, one of the contributors to the literature on this has been editing the article. I've been glancing at popups of diffs from time to time but not the totality of his changes, even now. A few minutes ago I deleted two paragraphs he added, one sourced to Scott Wolter's website and the other to an article of Hu's published in the fringe journal Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts. We've discussed related material before. [37] A few more eyes reviewing this would be useful. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This was a dab page, someone's turned it into an article stub. Dougweller ( talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Overunity seems like just a content fork of perpetual motion and currently includes fringey phrases like
Also 89.160.124.74 remove the existing POV, no footnotes, and fringe theory templates without discussion, while adding that Over-unity should not be mixed up specifically with "Perpetual Motion". Same IP has also changed Over-unity from a redirect of Perpetual motion to a redirect of Overunity.-- Atlantima ( talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Could anyone help out on Eteocretan language? I don't want an edit war with a user who is intent on adding his pet interpretation of this linguistics topic. I feel I have been on Wikipedia long enough to spot poor sourcing/original research, so I reverted to the last good version. I have been re-reverted too many times. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You may wonder why I'm calling this fringe when you look at the article. There's nothing obviously fringe there, or in the article of the founder, Donald Panther-Yates. But a look at their blog tells a very different story. The entry "Giants with Double-Rowed Teeth, Flattened Heads and Six Fingers" [39] is clearly fringe, and Yates is bringing out a new book The Cherokee Anomaly: How DNA, Ancient Alphabets and Religion Explain America's Largest Indian Nation, published by McFarland & Co. next year, with an introductory note by Cyclone Covey, foreword by Richard Mack Bettis. It "uncovers the Jewish and Eastern Mediterranean ancestry of the Cherokee and reveals that they originally spoke Greek before adopting the Iroquoian language of their Haudenosaunee allies while the two nations dwelt together in the Ohio Valley." [40]. See also its own website [41] and sadly, Betti's forward, [42], full of misinformation. Dougweller ( talk) 21:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
184.153.187.119 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding creationist arguments to articles and talk pages regularly since September 2012. Can someone please have a look at this? I'm too tired. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 16:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Stem cell educator ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Is anyone aware if this is an actual device/potential therapy or something equivalent to tinfoil hats? One of the previous "sources" was to a clinic that does "stem cell therapy" for everything from allergies to MS to alzheimers by subQ injections and so I have my doubts. But could use some expert's opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I posted on the talk page of WP:FRINGE, but i'm not sure whether that discussion properly belongs here or there. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Christopher Dunn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Noticed something on a Social Media today about the Pyramids of Giza producing clean electric energy. Stopped by to check out the article on Christopher Dunn the main proponent of the hypothesis. Dunn seems to have self published "The Spiritual Technology of Ancient Egypt: Sacred Science and the Mystery of Consciousness" and a documentary on the "The Giza Power Plant" both fall well within the WP:FRINGE category. Currently the article presents the information largely without verifiable or reliable sources needed to establish notability for individuals. A similar article was apparently deleted through the AFD process Christopher Dunn (engineer) as Dougweller ( talk · contribs) noted on the talk page in 2009. It is worth noting as he is cited on the List of Egyptian pyramids ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as if he is reputable source. I hope users of this board can remedy the problems with this article, for I simply dont have the time. Systems Theorist ( talk) 23:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Socialism#Removal of technical tag. Just because there are an abundance of Marxist sources claiming that Socialism is the historical stepping stone to communism, does that make it any less of a fringe view when every country calling itself socialist today is a mixed capitalist economy with a welfare state? Neo Poz ( talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A preponderance of contemporary academic sources state the cause of the mass poisoning was ergotism. Someone is insisting the academic sources can't be used and instead the incident must be attributed to "an unknown psychoactive drug", with a fringe theory blaming a secret CIA MK ULTRA program taking up most of the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Bat Creek inscription an editor has raised an issue about the article being in the categories Archaeological Forgeries, Hoaxes in the United States, and 19th Century Hoaxes. He argues that this violates NPOV and that the categories should have descriptions, which they indeed lack. He also suggests a new category, "Artifacts of disputed authenticity". My problem is that almost all archaeological hoaxes, or at least those in the US, have adherents who argue they are genuine (this is probably true of most hoaxes). This is clearly a fringe issue and covers more than one article. In this specific case current mainstream opinion is that this is a hoax. The main arguments that it is not come from the editor himself, who is an economist. Dougweller ( talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theorist" or not "conspiracy theorist"? That is the question in Mark Lane (author). Location ( talk) 06:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Does this qualify as
WP:FRINGE or maybe just a case of
WP:DUE, as marked? I am not familiar enough with the literature to tell. --
UseTheCommandLine (
talk)
19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
"the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was intended as a precursor to a similar experiment scheduled to take place in the New York City subway system, and that a subsequent uncontrolled MKULTRA experiment involved the emission of LSD and other substances from the tailpipes of CIA vehicles as they drove through New York City. Albarelli uncovered considerable evidence that the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was an MKNAOMI project code-named Project SPAN ("Pont" translates to "bridge" or "span"), and that Project SPAN involved the contamination of food supplies and the aerosolized spraying of a potent LSD mixture in Pont-Saint-Esprit." Wow, that's conclusive then! I think this is waaaay too undue. But then again, I could be mastermining the Cover Up Operation. Paul B ( talk) 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
William C. Rader ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Additional eyes requested. Thanks.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A user Belayed Reasons has been adding some fringe theories to the telepathy article. Hes also been deleting stuff from other references and adding things in which are not in the text. Does anyone know how to revert all of his edits in one go? He is making a mess of some of the article. Fodor Fan ( talk) 12:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The opening paragraph reads:
It seems a little odd to lump Christ Myth Theory (which seeks to explain the text of the new-testament in terms of mythology). I imagine that many non-Christians believe Jesus to be a non-historical figure. I think this is unfair to Christ Myth Theory which is a legitimate area of study, i.e. trying to apply the principles of mythology to the New-Testament era. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 10:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This depends on how WP:FRINGE establishes fringiness. From WP:FRINGE: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." So it's clear that fringiness is a scholarly classification. At face value, archeology and history are probably the most relevant topics. I know that there are a lot of scholars researching this topic, and while the evidence may not be definitive, I don't think we can apply WP:FRINGE in an area where ongoing research is occurring. I think we would need a high quality secondary source which makes the case that this ongoing archaeological research is not legitimate. I think this is a case where we might say "the jury is still out", and that definitive claims in either direction should not be included. aprock ( talk) 17:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Ubikwit ( talk) 18:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the hypothesis that a historical Jesus figure never existed is supported only by a very small minority of modern scholars. Bart Ehrman has stated that now virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and Robert M. Price agrees that this denial perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. Myth theorist G. A. Wells has also softened his stance on the non-existence issue. Van Voorst and separately Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.
[Unindent] From " Historicity of Jesus" (reference numbers removed):
“ | While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity, most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. | ” |
That's clarified later.
“ | The reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus along with his life story has been the subject of wide ranging debate among scholars, with no scholarly consensus.[31] In a review of the state of research Amy-Jill Levine stated that "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" and that all portraits of Jesus are subject to criticism by some group of scholars.
However, regardless of the scholarly disagreements on the reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be two historically certain facts about him. |
” |
So it would seem that little, if any of the Gospel account is considered certain. The article goes on to list a few more facts that have some degree of agreement amongst scholars, but it's not a particularly long list: "Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. He called disciples. He had a controversy at the Temple. Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem." and "Jesus was a Galilean. His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea. After his death his disciples continued. Some of his disciples were persecuted."
So... I'm not convinced that there's such universal agreement about the life of Jesus as would justify calling anything but the "Christ didn't exist at all" variant of Christ myth theory fringe. Given that Christ myth theory also encompasses "there was a person called Jesus, but almost all teachings and miracles attributed to him were either invented or symbolic references." - and that the teachings and miracles are not part of the things listed as part of the historical facts with general agreement in historians, that seems to be pretty much mainstream.
The problem we have, as Wikipedia, is that we're looking at a term everyone thinks they understand, but which is actually incredibly vague. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 15:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)