This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I don't know if the subject interests anyne else, but I'm already too involved in this article and want to back out if I can. Various problems, see the talk page. I won't comment myself about it, but if, as I said, anyone's interested in Egyptology they might enjoy this. Dougweller ( talk) 21:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
oh dear, this appears to be the classic WP:FRINGE case, a theory associated with a single scholar, who is even personally dominating the talkpage and giving directions on how he would like his views advertised on Wikipedia. -- dab (đł) 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not think a lot of expert knowledge is needed here. Rohl suggested this revised chronology based on "let's take the Hebrew Bible and find a historical person to match each character that appears in it". Egyptologists have looked at it and said "98% rubbish". It's a fringe theory that received some limited media coverage. It should just be merged back into the David Rohl article and presented for what it is worth. -- dab (đł) 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
this is pretty bad, and we need to look after the "revised chronology" articles more generally. A lot of undue crackpottery seems to have been festering here. See Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, apparently a clone of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies dedicated to Immanuel Velikovsky. David Rohl appears to be a product of a sizeable "shadow academy" starting with Velikovsky's Revised Chronology (1952) which engendered the Glasgow Chronology (1978). This is all 100% WP:FRINGE. Other limbs of this would include Emmet Sweeney (link to deletion debate) and Gunnar Heinsohn (a tenured sociologist who apparently fell for Velikovsky), Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered), Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis. All of this needs to be checked for notability and proper presentation, strictly within Category:Pseudohistory. Super-articles are Catastrophism and Phantom time hypothesis. The David Rohl articles appear to be the most vigorous attempt at misrepresenting this thing as part of bona fide Egyptology at the moment.
Help from more FRINGE-savvy editors is badly needed here, as we haven't got past the stage of "but it was on TV" on talk yet. -- dab (đł) 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
some more assistance here? The talkpage of this article is a regualar COI swamp and I cannot be bothered to resolve this on my own. -- dab (đł) 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is full of shaky claims and lacks anything resembling a reputable source. I suspect the best thing to do would be to delete it. (It was prodded some time ago but the prod was contested.) An editor named James Aslan ( talk · contribs) has complained about the article on the talk page, but apparently isn't familiar enough with Wikipedia procedures to address the problems effectively. Looie496 ( talk) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this topic to make any kind of realistic call on this article, but it sounds awfully fringey to me. It's currently up for AFD with zero !votes after four days, so I thought people here might want to take a look at it. Dori ⊠( Talk â Contribs â Review) ⊠23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
AfD link where the theory that the pharmaceutical industry is engaged in "competitor suppression" forms a major part of the discussion. Tim Vickers ( talk) 04:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Another eye on these articles would be useful, see the talk page of both. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Time, like light, may best be described as a union of opposites. Time may be both wave and, ultimately, particle, each in some sense a reflection of the other. The same holographic properties that have long been an accepted part of the phenomenon of the perception of three-dimensional space also suggest that interference patterns are characteristic of process. Living beings especially illustrate this: They are an instance of the superimposition of many different chemical waves, waves of gene expression and of gene inhibition, waves of energy release and energy consumption, forming the standing wave interference patterns characteristic of life. We hypothesize that this wave description is the simple form of a more complex wave that utilizes the simple wave as the primary unit in a system of such units, combined in the same way as lines are combined into trigrams and then hexagrams in the I Ching. We will argue that this more complex wave is a kind of temporal map of the changing boundary conditions that exist in space and time, including future time. We have called the quantized wave-particle, whatever its level of occurrence within the hierarchy or its duration, eschaton.
We donât think about time because we take it for granted like breathing, but consider our hypothesis that the space-time continuum is a modular wave-hierarchy. The Eschaton is a universal and fractal morphogenetic field, hypothesized to model the unfolding predispositions of space and time. This structure was decoded from the King Wen sequence of the I Ching and was the central idea that evolved in the wake of the events of La Chorrera as described in my book, True Hallucinations.
ââ Terence McKenna [1]
The above is a good example of the pseudoscientific word-salad babble that makes up the WP:PRIMARY source material for this 'theory' (to which I became exposed after responding to an earlier FTN notice on the topic).
In that time, I have discovered that:
How does one treat such material, which appears to be so far out on the fringe as to have no contact with reality, whilst still retaining notability? [belatedly signed Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC) ]
(<---) Turned it into a redirect to Terence McKenna. Goodmorningworld ( talk) 19:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have found evidence of original research and abuse of sources in this article, and have suggested it for featured article review here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1 Shoemaker's Holiday Over 193 FCs served 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myron Evans (2nd nomination) and the discussion on my talk page for background. Evans is actively discussiong Wikipedia in his blog and now The World of Hadronic Physics and The Science and Faith of Larry Horwitz have been created, written, directed and produced by Francesco Fucilla: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Fucilla. It might be worth watching the articles mentioned in his blog. Webmaster6 ( talk · contribs) seems to be an SPA devoted to Evans related articles. EinsteinâCartanâEvans theory is about his theory. He recently tried to start a private University named after him in Wales but the Welsh government wasn't impressed, so it's been renamed and moved to Hungary I believe. Dougweller ( talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Two editors have removed a reliably sourced repetition of an admittedly fringe theory, advanced by the Iranian state press, that Taitz' activities are funded by Israel. The assertion being made is that since a state-run biased source with an apparent history of anti-semitic fabrication appearss to have originated the theory, it should remain unmentioned, with a secondary assertion that WP:UNDUE prohibits mention of reliably sourced fringe theories. More input at Talk:Orly Taitz would be welcome. Jclemens ( talk) 06:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There has been a recent edit war on the page of this anti-fringe group, with one editor reverting any changes made to address issues they raised to a version with less information, and now there are accusations of POV and OR. It is claimed that the article is unbalanced, that describing positive coverage without an RS that the coverage is positive is OR, and that the article gives undue credibility to SaS. I would like more editors to review the arguments from both sides and add your own if you like. Please watchlist and join the talk page discussion. Verbal chat 08:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Blippy ( talk · contribs) is editwarring a POV tag into the article without justification, despite several requests on the talk page (unless "I dispute the neutrality" can be taken as a justification) Verbal chat 08:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is about a fringe book that I believe isn't even notable. I prodded it 9 months ago when it was still fresh. Since then it survived an AfD, based on references from other fringe publications, got a peer review and failed (unsurprisingly) a GA nomination. Some statements of fact are protected with qualifications such as "purported", but the overall treatment is completely in-universe. No wonder, since the only author himself evidently lives in this "infinite universe in which the core element is vibration", as described by an "extraterrestrial group of supernatural entities purportedly contacted by Don Elkins" and others. Comments on the talk page suggest to me that the article may not even represent the mainstream among the fringe group of believers in this stuff.
I am not sure what's the best way to deal with this cancerous article (it grows and grows). Any ideas? Hans Adler 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. Merge into Don Elkins with prejudice. I mean, even Ramtha was merged into J. Z. Knight, and notability was rather more arguable there. -- dab (đł) 18:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there isn't really anything to say about the topic because there are no mainstream sources discussing it. Except one strange book about New Age, called "Strange Weather", which doesn't so much discuss as describe it, and possibly the following. Perhaps someone has free access to this paper and can check if it's any use:
Hans Adler 19:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent article. Missed something about the 6th band (what happened to the other five?); a little more attention to detail and it's a straight win at WP:GAN. Growth is a natural condition of a healthy wikipedia article; articles are more like children than tumors. NVO ( talk) 06:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
ok, at least it is now crystal clear where the problem lies. I am glad we had this discussion. It looks like we're going to delete Ra (channeled entity) and then recreate it as a protected redirect to Don Elkins. I think this pretty much sums up this thread. -- dab (đł) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
excellent. I believe this case is so obvious, it will be difficult even for the arbcom to botch it. What we now need to do is review the Don Elkins article with regard to WP:BIO. THis is an article on a WP:FRINGE author and it does not present any evidence of notability. -- dab (đł) 15:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be caught between worlds, as it were. It also has some significant WP:SYN issues. Mangoe ( talk) 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Some debate on the homeopathy page talk here as to whether homeopathy is covered by WP:FRINGE. Clearly relevant to this noticeboard. Also, several other interesting discussions, if you can cope with the feeling of déjà vu. Verbal chat 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(remove indent) I can see how some people might get the impression of Homeopathy not being fringed when presented with the following in support of it:
The problem with all these is either the study doesn't say why the person citing it claims or it was refuted by a later study such as the following:
There is ongoing debate on the
Talk:Historicity of Jesus page regarding how much space in that article should be given to the possibility of Jesus being a myth. Much of the material seems to be based on the
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, which is apparently described as being a "cutting-edge" journal on the subject of the New Testament. I'm not sure what "cutting-edge" scholarship relating to documents that are, at least on average, about 1500 or more years old would be, but that's what the journal is about. I have a personal feeling, based on my own lack of any familiarity with the journal, that it might well include a good deal of
fringey material.
Anyway, two questions for the esteemed frequenters of this board:
Please read the guideline. Blueboar ( talk) 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar, this is beside the point. The point is that Christ myth theory is a fringy content fork of Historicity of Jesus. The topic does have notability. The article on the topic is at Historicity of Jesus. You cannot use the (undisputed) notability of the scholarly discussion on the historicity of Jesus to defend the creation of an article dedicated to various selected fringe approaches to that same topic. Please have a glance at the talk archives. I have made this very point about six times over the past few years, and I never got more than hand-waving. The article cannot even delineate its scope wrt Historicity of Jesus for, ahem, chrissakes. Apparently, if a book disputes the historicity of Jesus and if it is dumbed down sensationalism (as opposed to contributing to the academic discussion), apparently it then belongs in the "Christ myth" article. If it's serious, it belongs in the "historicity" article. This isn't acceptable. -- dab (đł) 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As Dbachmann says, the "Christ myth theory" is the idea that there was no historical Jesus. This is an identifiable concept! What's more, there exists academic literature that treats this concept and the writers who have advocated it. Albert Schweitzer devoted two chapters of Quest of the Historical Jesus to it, and at least three recent books have covered the history of the theory in some detail: Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, William Weaver The historical Jesus in the twentieth century [6], and Clinton Bennett in Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images [7]. Each of these books devotes at least a chapter or substantial section to the idea that there was no historical Jesus, and they focus on the authors who have espoused the theory over the last century and a half (or so). You can see a list of the authors each source covers near the end of this section in the talk archives, and see that Schweitzer, Van Voorst, Weaver, and Bennett largely focus on the same authors, with Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, and William Benjamin Smith being the most important.
So there's an identifiable topic here, and it's notable--it receives substantial coverage in a variety of academic sources. The problem is, as Dbachmann says, that in its current state the article presents itself as an alternative version of Historicity of Jesus. But that simply means that the article should be fixed so that it's not a content fork, but a sub-article of Historicity of Jesus (or perhaps Quest for the Historical Jesus), which gives more detail about one aspect of thinking on the historical Jesus. --Akhilleus ( talk) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Was ok until a few days ago. No one takes her 'Pesher' (which it isn't really) seriously, no one can reproduce it, etc, but it's being edited by a fan. It could use some help esp. as I'm busy this weekend. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The article on Parapsychology is up for a featured article review, due to many problems. Please participate. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Should this article exist? The surveys were not run by any major polling company, they were by and large published in a fairly fringe journal, and it's hard to see such a tiny part of the topic as notable, even if the surveys were considered reliable. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is an absolute mess. The quality of the writing is poor, it is credulous, it venerates the subject, and is very very poorly sourced. Some help would be appreciated as I am having huge co;puter proble;s, and I've already been called "suspicious" and had ;y editing generally called into auestion by a brand new editor on the talk page... Thanks Verbal chat 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yakub, as we all know, was an ancient Saudi scientist who created the white race on the isle of Patmos. A new editor has recently radically re-edited the article on this, er, historical individual as if he were real, and he repeatedly restores this truth. The dates also suggest that Yakub died 150 years before he was born. Paul B ( talk) 00:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Critical Mind ( talk · contribs) has not resumed edit-warring after their block expired. They have vented some spleen at Talk:Melanin theory, but no further article space edits. -- dab (đł) 10:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about this? A new editor is going around adding his own essays to various entries from Swedenborgianism to Cult. S/he also created New Revelation of Jesus Christ. It seems like an Evangelical polemic against "false prophets". Googling the term turns up all kinds of things, including to some extent various criticisms of prophesy "outside the bible" labeled as such by conservative christian groups (e.g. against Mormon prophesy). I can't find any reliable sources on this, but I have to admit not looking too hard. Any thoughts? PelleSmith ( talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have taken it upon myself to "encyclopedicize" this article. More references are still needed though. But Torchrunner ( talk · contribs) needs watching, editor is apparently here to make articles "more neutral" by rewriting them from an evangelical viewpoint, mostly going on about how things they disagree with are "cults". -- dab (đł) 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, the AAH page is getting more discussion and traffic, with disagreement on how to represent its status in the scientific community. Extra input is appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposing merge of Exopolitics into Michael Salla. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
At the moment this article seems to exist only to give publicity to Wayne Herschel (eyes on that please also). Any suggestions as to what to do with it? A redirect to Dan Brown's forthcoming book? Does the statement that it's also in another book affect what we do? A Google search only suggests it will be in Brown's book. Dougweller ( talk) 07:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Not another Dan Brown book. This must be the worst author ever to meddle with these topics. His commercial success is a sad testimony for the intellectual state of the USA. Seriously, I am not a jealous person, but when I see that a boring, clueless hack gets the publicity and the millions that would properly belong to the many authors that are clearly his betters, I feel angry.
On topic though, this article obviously needs to be done away with by diligent merging. -- dab (đł) 13:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The real problem article is Wayne Herschel. I was against deleting the Elkins/Rueckert one, but by the same standards, the Herschel article should also go: this is just yet another guy who wrote a book on pyramids and ancient astronauts. Orion Correlation Theory also bears looking into ("Egyptology" ineed). -- dab (đł) 13:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
this "cipher" isn't in any way notable. It is one of literaly dozens of similar diagrams which you find in each of the dozens of manuscripts pertaining to the Clavicula tradition. It is just one random occult diagram out of a huge tradition of verz simlar diagrams. It just so happened to catch Mr. Herschel's fancy, but there is probably no objective reason to discuss this diagram in particular. -- dab (đł) 17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
sigh, it appears Mr. Herschel is not the only one infatuated with this pictogram. -- dab (đł) 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Could someone with more experience in the application of NPOV to fringe theories and pseudoscience on Wikipedia please drop by Talk:Astral projection. There is an edit war brewing over the appropriate way to address mainstream psychological interpretations of the perception of out-of-body experiences, and the outcome does not seem consistent with WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. In attempting to frame the lead in a manner consistent with a reasonably mainstream account, I have been rather incivilly acused of attempting to "vandalize" the article. Since I do not feel that I personally can remain constructive in such a hostile environment (indeed, I think I would only make things worse at this point), I would ask that a disinterested party please examine the matter. I will recuse myself from editing the article and its talk page for a period of one week, or until the matter has reached a resolution. SĆawomir BiaĆy ( talk) 22:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I need more eyes on this article. The overwhelming view is that these people died of accidental drownings in completely unrelated cases due to being drunk etc., but some minor self-declared profilers for hire have decided that this must be a bunch of interconnected murders, and of course because it sounds cooler some edutainment shows (like Larry King Live) have given some of these people air time. I maintain that by WP:UNDUEWEIGHT that the primary view presented must be what the police and FBI say (no murders) and that other views obviously can be mentioned but not everyone with a theory on it and not just because Larry King talked to them. There's very little input on the talk page, and what is there is usually people out to promote the view. Some outside opinions on the matter would be helpful and appreciated. DreamGuy ( talk) 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
While getting rid of ufoarea.com from Wikipedia because you have to pay to see the content, I ran into this article which anyone interested in UFOs, etc might want to look at. Dougweller ( talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Things are getting surreal at Jakob Lorber (Austrian mystic) and Great Gospel of John (his magnum opus). We have two users, and neither of them can write tuppence worth of content, and neither of them will condescend to spend five minutes to learn what Wikipedia is even trying to do.
Between themselves they make a fair mess of things, as they aren't even reverting each other but simply pile on their own material "referenced" with random urls. -- dab (đł) 11:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
For anyone interested, there's a discussion currently in play over at talk:2012 millenarianism (recently renamed from 2012 doomsday prediction) about what should be the most appropriate name for this article, with its scope covering various 2012-related speculations/predictions/theorising/phenomena. Arguments for/against various current title proposals are at Talk:2012_millenarianism#Definition_of_Millenarianism and Talk:2012_millenarianism#Formal_discussion_on_page_name, and there's an open poll at Talk:2012_millenarianism#Title_of_article_--_the_.28single_transferable.29_vote.21. Contribs & thoughts welcomed. -- cjllw Ê TALK 03:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to note, this has now gone to Featured article removal candidates. I suspect it is not my place to say more than that. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Two editors, Xellas ( talk · contribs) and Paul H. ( talk · contribs), are in a dispute about the appropriate level of coverage for the ideas of Robert Sarmast, and have escalated to the level of a WQA. It seems to me that the best solution is to bring more eyes to the question, and that this is the right place to do it. Looie496 ( talk) 15:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Paul A. LaViolette . . . is an American scientist who has proposed unorthodox physics theories and interpretations of the Bible, Mayan pictograms, the Zodiac and ancient Vedic stories. . . . LaViolette is the current president of the Starburst Foundation, an interdisciplinary scientific research institute."
This article was started on August 19 (by a now-blocked user) and seems to be generating some rancor, including this thread at ANI, and this AfD that closed without consensus on August 27. Fringe-experienced reviewers might be useful. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
We have Satbir Singh ( talk · contribs), still merrily spamming us with his unspeakable Kamboja essays. I just discovered Komedes, but there are lots of others. I would be grateful if I wasn't the only one trying to contain this. -- dab (đł) 11:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A relatively new article about a fringe writer which could use some attention, I came across this today when its creator tried to add the author's website and sps book to Archaeoastronomy. Another attempt to publicise Herschel is here. Dougweller ( talk) 08:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been told by the UK Wikipedia authority Joseph Seddon Re:Ticket#2009090210032671 that I must be removed. Other authors with less status than my own have the right to be on wikipedia but due to the material concerned, I have absolutely no right to be there. All that is left there is the image that I rendered on a separate page... and even my copyrights as the artist have been removed too for the Solomon Key cipher now to be public property. They are out right lying that it has expired. (it was only there two months and copyright text on it now removed) I am releasing all documentation to the media for next week with the other attacks to try and stop my book project that are underway right now. I presented all the third party references they asked for, TV coverage, Coast to Coast radio, many newspapers covering my findings as discoveries, not just an author, two periodicals on the Solomon key and more.
Authors like David Ike that self published, had no media covered historical discoveries, and claims the Queen of England is an alien has a full page spread."
this image -- if it's a manual redrawing, we should delete the image as unencyclopedic. I was under the impression that it is a facsimile directly from the BM manuscript. If it isn't, we don't have any use for it, we should acquire an actual facsimile instead. If Herschel copied this by hand I must admit he did a pretty convincing job with the Hebrew cursive. -- dab (đł) 10:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
ok, here is an actual facsimile of the page in question. I am convinced that Herschel did not redraw this but simply used photographic reproduction. What he apparently did do, though, was adding a cheesy "parchment-style" background (the actual manuscript is on paper). I will replace the cheesy image with the more encyclopedic one at commons. -- dab (đł) 10:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidently, all research on psychic powers this fellow did was completely successful and uncriticised. Who knew? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 11:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and
Precognition presents itself as entirely a real phenomena.
Shoemaker's Holiday Over
204 FCs served 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, Pavel Stepanek was never, ever shown to be anything but a full-out psychic phenomenon.
Displacement (parapsychology) shows that if you guess wrongly in a trial, but would have guessed rightly if you had made that guess at some other time, that can be used as evidence of parapsychology too, and there is absolutely no problem with this, indeed, the article says it's a statistically proven phenomena.
...Ah, screw it. Just check the contributions of Rodgarton ( talk · contribs). I caught him abusing sources horribly at Parapsychology, and simple requests afterwards like "You claim this paper on card guessing significantly advanced the field of statistics. Can you show it was ever cited in a non-parapsychological context?" were met with non sequiturs like "I don't need to prove it! It was published in a non-parapsychological journal, that's all that's necessary to show parapsychology advanced statistics!" and, later, "Other papers in that journal are cited." Copious personal attacks were also provided.
Rodgarton is pretty much the epitome of a POV-pushing single purpose account, and a thorough review is almost certainly necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
ETA:
Joseph Banks Rhine is pretty much an advertisement for parapsychology, start to finish - criticism is only mentioned briefly, and immediately belittled. This is the fellow Langmuir invented the term
pathological science to describe the studies of.
Shoemaker's Holiday Over
204 FCs served 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I should mention the reason I was checking these articles is because their creator abuses sources horribly (for an analysis of one such section he wrote, and his increasingly irrational defenses, see the first big table at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1â), and is purely a pro-Parapsychology SPA.. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you think an RFC or similar on him would help? He isn't really here to improve the encyclopedia. just to push his POV. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered something very interesting:
26 July, at Meta-analysis, he makes the following change
Previous | Rodgarton's edit |
---|---|
The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. [...] | The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. . However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates. [1] This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem). |
The claim he makes there is almost certainly false, see http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/12/579 - a comprehensive analysis of the history of metanalyses that makes no such claim, whereas his cite for the extraordinary claim is to a conference paper presented at a fringe theory conference - however, more interestingly, despite what he wrote there, he makes a very different, very much more inflated claim in Parapsychology:
Parapsychology, 11 August.
[8]
â | [...] A monographic review of the first sixty years of organised parapsychological research has been noted as the first meta-analysis in the history of science; [...] | â |
Same reference. Claim he knew was false. Bad. Faith. Editor. Let's ban him. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
pseudoskeptic: someone who is skeptical more than enough, to the point of WP:COI.. for an encylopedic definition; Pseudoskeptic#Pseudoskepticism. Logos5557 ( talk) 07:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
AfD Open, interested parties may want to have a look. Simonm223 ( talk) 02:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed what I saw as a pov statement, including something about a race of giants ( Zamzumim}, and it was reverted by Til Eulenspiegel with the edit summary " the part you blanked makes no mention of any "giants", it merely states that the Hebrews conquered Canaan which is only disputed by fringe". Fringe has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, is Til right? Thanks. I've removed the text again. Dougweller ( talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Who actually disputes that the Hebrews conquered Canaan? Are those few who dispute it now the "mainstream", and everyone else "fringe"? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The conquest is certainly not fringe: as TE says, a lot of scholarship is dedicated to the idea that the outlines of history in the OT are more or less accurate. IMO, biblical accounts of history should not be deleted by a rational that they are fringe. OTOH, the conquest should not be presented simply as fact, but as the biblical account. What TE has restored is not neutral or impartial for this reason: "probably the best account of the Hebrew conquest"--the OT is the only account of the Hebrew conquest.
kwami (
talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Til (aka Codex Sinaiticus) has a long history of bible-thumping pov-pushing. Typically insisting on using the Bible directly as a secondary source, as evident by his complaint that we are "treating the Bible as fringe". The Hebrew Bible is, of course, neither fringe nor non-fringe, since it isn't a secondary source in the first place. It is a primary source, a compilation of Iron Age Hebrew texts. Be that as it may, the paragraph in question can be salvaged by improving it: it is almost never a question of "do we keep this material, yes or no" but one of how do we need to edit this to make it acceptable. Now the point here is conflation of the Biblical account with other evidence. In the topic of Canaan, the Biblical account is certainly highly notable, but it should be made very clear which bits are taken from the bible and which aren't. Consequently, the passage
is not acceptable. We need one paragraph or section detailing the account in the Hebrew Bible, and another one detailing Egyptian sources, but we cannot conflate the two. Obviously, Deuteronomy and Joshuah are in no way a reference to the "many earlier Egyptian sources", which need to be specified in order to satisfy WP:CITE. -- dab (đł) 09:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Refocusing on the content question: Assertions that the Biblical accounts of ancient Middle Eastern history are factually accurate are almost certainly fringe views. This is akin to stating that Homer's famous version of the Trojan War is a factually accurate recounting of history. Kernels of truth exist, but we must mainly rely on current mainstream scholarship to identify those portions (and to identify how they've been altered in the narrative) and most certainly should not take Biblical acocunts at face value. Jericho's walls are the prime example of the conquest: The walls did certainly fall, but the city was in area then prone to earthquakes and the city itself was a ghost town during the purported time of Joshua (or at least thus is general consensus of secular archaeology). In a similar vein, the overwhelming majority of scholarship sees a complete lack of evidence for the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. It is also important to note that modern archaeology generally considers the Iron Age Hebrews to be fundamentally Canaanite in language and culture even as late as five centuries after the supposed conquest (even extending into the time after the united monarchy is said to have split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel). Accounts with some considerable distance in time from this period are generally considered to have a greater foundation in historical fact, but are still usually regarded as heavily biased and edited versions of historical truth at best.
tl;dr version: Insisting that the Bible is an accurate representation of Iron Age history in the region is a fringe view. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
A page created exclusively for the purpose of ethnic bickering among Turks, Armenians and Kurds, under the pretext of the name of a cat breed. The article didn't even bother to link to the article on the cat in question before I touched it. -- dab (đł) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be a whole heap of forks on this topic:
Merging the whole shebang into a single neutral article would seem to be appropriate. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
In a content dispute Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl has been removed [10] pr WP:Fringe & WP:UNDUE and not a WP:RS from an article. Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 06:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This fringe blp may be unintentionally hilarious, but I think it suffers from several problems, including coatracking, peacocking and puffery, an unencyclopedic and credulous tone, and undue weight. It's a big job though, I'm not sure where to start - and I'm sure tagging will be bitterly resisted. Related awful article Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010... Verbal chat 08:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I redirected the UFO Hypothesis article to the article of its main proponent. "The Fatima UFO Hypothesis" article's citations were exclusively to proponents' books published by Anomalist Books and references that do not address the UFO theory. Thus, the article was highly inappropriate in the context of both "no original research" and notability. It served as little more than a soapbox to expound on proponent's views. The redirect was reversed by Zacherystaylor ( talk · contribs) with the edit summary of "redirect and virtual deletion done without discussion or good explanation". I have reinstated the redirect and left a message for Zacherystaylor explaining the problems with the article ( User talk:Zacherystaylor#Fatima UFO Hypothesis, permalink). Additional eyes would be welcome on this topic. Also, did I take the correct action here? Is my rationale sound or lacking? Vassyana ( talk) 00:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Apparently meridians have been proven to exist, and light proven to flow through them. This article is a spammy mess of poor sources and COI advertising. More eyes please. Verbal chat 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with pseudoscience take a look at Alfred Matthew Hubbard? This article has some strange fringe claims: "In addition to being a major proponent of LSD, earlier in life, Al Hubbard invented a device at the age of 16 which provided enough energy to power a boat around Portage Bay, on Lake Union, in Seattle, Washington." They are saying that he invented the "most powerful nuclear battery ever created, and as early as 1919, easily making it the first" â which definitely sets off some red flags in my mind. This article needs major review and cleanup and I don't have the knowledge or resources to do it myself. *** Crotalus *** 15:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not especially bad but there's no strong warning like "THIS IS FALSE".. and there are some pro-dowsing sources that are presented as reliable. Does anyone have access to some reliable studies? .froth. ( talk) 19:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(moved here from policy RfC by Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
If some more medical type doctors could look over this article and check whether it is fringe or not, and accurate, I'd be grateful at least. There are a few warning signs - such as "despite FDA approval there is no evidence that it works..." (paraphrase) Verbal chat 18:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of cleaning up this article but would appreciate outside eyes (drum shot) and review. I'd be shocked that this topic was presented with such a high level of credence, but I've been around here long enough to know better. There seems to be some connection with the Bates Method, which I remember to have been a contentious topic but don't know the specifics of. Skinwalker ( talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've put up a report on him up on ANI. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Article plagued by normal notable-fringe-researcher problems with PoV, Peacockery, etc. Please help. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of good information on this article but there are a few editors who insist on adding npov stuff or poorly referenced pseudoscience and paranormal information; in particular there are a lot of links to BLT Research Team INC. which is a not-peer-reviewed journal about crop circles and Haselhoff, Eltjo (2001) "The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles:Scientific Research & Urban Legends", Frog Ltd, ISBNÂ 1583940464. Frog publishing is a small publisher that focuses on the paranormal. Neither of these seem to be reliable sources but I'm afraid removing them will result in an edit war since these sources provide the best evidence for paranormal explanations of crop circles. Could either of these be considered reliable sources? Does anyone have suggestions for fixing the articles npov problems? Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Article currently undergoing astroturfing to give the possibility that he has psychic abilities undue weight. - Nunh-huh 11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this one is that there are virtually no reliable sources, no one takes it seriously enough, so we are ending up with a number of fringe sites used as links. See the edit history as well, please. Thanks. (any time you see Clyde Winters name, be assured it is fringe). Dougweller ( talk) 17:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Subject is a scientist with an interest in fringe science. He seems to have written the article himself and his English is poor. Hence the article is listed for wikification, which is how I found it, and now as having multiple issues. Someone with a physics background could probably knock it into shape more quickly than I can. Is the subject notable anyway? Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Funky sources. Clean or AfD. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It's up for AfD. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a terrible recreation (sort of) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dropa. That was a better article. Neither had much about the Dropa -- this one is actually about the so-called Dropa stones. Dougweller ( talk) 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a fringe topic that is occasionally full of many unsourced claims. Please add WP:RS, and otherwise improve the page. Verbal chat 09:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Fringe religious figure, huge biography, few citations, needs serious pruning. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This pending AfD might benefit from review by some fringe-policy savants.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
See here: [13], [14], [15]. Can someone keep an eye on this? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 10:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
User is aware of the decision per [ this AE thread]. However, since he's a single purpose account, he got a pass, after promising, er, nothing. But hey, Wikipedia is an experiment in internet sociology, and if people just blocked individuals like Cs32en the second they appeared there wouldn't be the requisite drama, right? Hipocrite ( talk) 13:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Brought to attention of this board as it involves WP:EXTREMIST AfD up. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Colloidal silver (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is sort of a perennial trouble spot. "Conventional" authorities like the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the FDA, and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration tend to uniformly agree that it is ineffective and potentially toxic. However, a positive view of colloidal silver is represented by editors active on the page well in excess of its actual representation among experts in the field. Arguments put forth on the talk page tend to include personal websites, editorial testimonials (colloidal-silver-cured-my-dog-without-all-the-side-effects-of-conventional-antibiotics - seriously), medical treatises published in 1913, and the ever-popular conventional-medicine-was-wrong-about-leeches-too argument. Most recently, a negative study of Internet-marketed colloidal silver ( PMID 15114827) was excised as "a tinpot study from Botswana". I would appreciate additional input. MastCell Talk 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I had written a short paragraph on colloidal silver for the article alternative medicine over a year ago, but it was removed there quite soon and I didn't bother with fighting the fringe advocates back then, I already had enough of that. Here is that paragraph, I think it could be quite useful.
I'm going to see whether I can get the articles from the medicine journals from the 1940s that are mentioned on the homepage, and if I'll get some support with that, I'll expand the article. Zara1709 ( talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Zara, Maybe comments like colloidal silver has been "pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies" could be considered somewhat biased language (and probably inaccurate too). But anyway, all the points you make are already covered in the colloidal silver article. The fact that silver can cause argyria is mentioned numerous times. BRangifer, I've read those policy statements you cited but I don't see that they justify including a word for word personal blast such as the one from Rosemary Jacobs about a product (CSP) that has virtually been unavailable for years. Its supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a blog. DHawker ( talk) 08:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Pertaining to MastCell's initial paragraph, I presented the "medical treatises published in 1913", some of which were research by doctors published in the Lancet and BMJ, for the HISTORY section of colloidal silver. In spite of the fact that colloidal silver was commonly used by doctors at that time, MastCell questioned using historical research in the history section because it was "outdated" [20]. Perhaps it is MastCell's opinion that using references from the time that you are talking about is "outdated", but I don't think this is wikipedia policy. stmrlbs| talk 06:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This article, which was previously a racist troll magnet called Race and crime, has reared its ugly head again. Some have tried to fix the problems, and the article is better than that it replaced, but it still contains (until I removed them anyway) raw statistics, in a table format without any contextualising or explanatory text, and some fringe theories, one factoid sections (removed), and a section "Racially motivated crime" which contains a paragraph about one rather dubious theory. Many many more eyes and opinions please (I may be being overly harsh as I remember the problems with this article in the past, so please can as many of you go and have a look, and see what you can do). Verbal chat 15:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note the recreation of Astrotheology. PelleSmith ( talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Since I last touched this article in 2005, apparently this person has invented time travel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovondatr. Uncle G ( talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a report on a bizarre project that claims that any tiny statistical variation in a random number generator that occurs for any length of time any time within a few days of an event the authors deem important is proof of psychic powers.
In short, a pretty bad article. A lot of the articles in Category:Parapsychology could use a similar cleanup, since a lot of true believers have pulled out the crankiest research in parapsychology and made promotional articles out of it. More mainstream parapsychological articles tend to be better. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
All this renewed attention to the article, and yet still no mention there of the definitive project that stands a chance of pegging the meters and silencing the critics for good. I may get around to adding it myself, but then again it might be more productive to use that time to train for this year's big December event. Tim Shuba ( talk) 03:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
There's this article at Zero-point field that seems to promote various alternative theories about quantum mechanics and zero point field in a manner not consistent with Wikipedia's policies on the issue. I went and started to discuss it on the talk page at that article, and they seemed to want to turn it into a discussion about the validity of the theories and not how it conforms to WP policy or fails to do so. It seems to involve a group of anon editors, and they're threatening to pull the dispute tag. What to do about this? You should also review the discussion at Talk:Zero-point field too (the last couple of threads about neutrality dispute). mike4ty4 ( talk) 07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
An IP has been doing a whitewash of this article, stripping all critical material [21]. He's at 5RR, for the record. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 06:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Could do with some attention. Arguments about notability and adding dubious sources countering criticism, and not only giving the article a criticism section but a response to criticism section - which I find very unencylopedic. Anyway, could do with some TLC from assorted editors here. Please join in! Verbal chat 21:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed the merge, however the other editor has again removed some of the only reliably sourced material - the criticism - from the page, in apparent retaliation that I removed his quote and WP:SYNTH. Verbal chat 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Needs some attention, Systemizer ( talk · contribs) is adding what is apparently OR, but eyes from more scientific types would be useful. Dougweller ( talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Clear content fork with Random Number Generator. Article creator is opposing redirect. Third party opinions welcome. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
{Undent}I wouldn't entirely rule out hidden variable theories within quantum mechanics; it's fully possible that there is deterministic crap happening that we just haven't observed or effectively described with math just yet. But that's getting a bit off topic. I have no intention of removing information from random number generator either, I understand your concern but I'm reticent to allow a POV fork in the off chance that somebody deletes properly referenced discussion to a fringe use of hardware derived random number generators. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Capoid race had a lot of original research and didn't make clear that the term was no longer current. I've dealt with that, but I've also come across Africoid peoples, which is a harder nut to crack. There's debate on the talk page that flags up the problems with the article, but broadly it has a lot of personal opinion, original research, poor sourcing, and confused writing. A reduction and merge into Negroid has been proposed. Fences& Windows 17:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Race of ancient Egyptians needs to be reverted to the last sane revision. We have rules for a reason. The "historical racial categories" articles are a huge magnet for current-day racists, and we need to impose some sort of order there. The best move may be to merge all of them (excepting some three major ones) into scientific racism. As it is, the Iranid race article gets disproportional attention from Iranian racialist cranks, the Africoid peoples/ Negroid race one gets disproportional attention from Pan-Africanist racialist cranks, etc. Having a main article on historical racial categories more generally will even out this effect. This whole racism issue remains a huge unsolved problem for Wikipedia. On one hand, we have politically correct hysteria preventing detached coverage of perfectly encyclopedic topics like the Race and crime debate in the US, while at the same time, positive racist fringe theories are running unchecked at all these little "this race", "that race" articles. On the Afrocentrist side, I think we are seeing a concerted effort at pushing the theories of [[S.O.Y Keita] way beyond their WP:DUE relevance -- dab (đł) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There have been several previous threads on this noticeboard about the Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science, a web organization either down a back lane in East Croydon or somewhere in Hungary. (It is connected with The Alpha Institute for Advanced Study, a web organization either in a village on the outskirts of Swansea or somewhere in Hungary.) This organization is devoted to pseudoscience and awards prizes mostly to those who have contested well-established parts of theoretical physics. Prizewinners include Myron Evans, Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Diego Lucio Rapoport, Alwyn Van der Merwe, Lawrence Paul Horwitz, Florentin Smarandache, other editors of Progress in Physics and Franco Selleri, whose BLP is currently up for deletion here. The organization at first bore the name of Ruggero Santilli; it appears to be financed by Francesco Fucilla, who has edited wikipedia himself (his editing style is instantly recognizable because he uses capitalization and exclamation marks, London IPs and often adds his own signature, a tell-tale sign). Webmaster6 ( talk · contribs) has been slowly adding pages to wikipedia connected with Fucilla and this organization. Several articles on promotional videos have been deleted (starting with "The Universe of Myron Evans"; here's a video of Dunning-Davies extolling Santilli's theories [22]). Both Evans and Fucilla run off-wiki commentary on the BLPs they wish to add to wikipedia and the deletion process: Evans on his blog at www.aias.us [23] and Fucilla on the Telesio-Galilei website [24]. I believe that Myron Evans actually threatened WMF with action over his BLP (later confirmed by User:Daniel), which resulted in his own biographical stub being put up for deletion by me some time back. (A neutral description of his eponymous theory took its place.) I think more eyes are needed on this little walled garden of articles and in particular the contributions of Webmaster6 who appears to have a WP:COI. No need for wikipedia to become a mirror site for pseudoscientific websites, even if there is a slightly comical aspect to the whole thing (Santilli's magnegas - an alternative fuel based on his own new molecule, made from reprocessed human waste, tested on a Ferrari). Mathsci ( talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced BLP about a hero doctor of the alternative health movement. The section that describes his battles with the FDA doesn't seem very balanced. He's an Associate Editor of Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, so definitely very fringe. Fences& Windows 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a source, I can understand your position now. The paper you quote is from 2004 and says
But popular opinion has travelled - spectacularly - in the opposite direction to science. By the early eighties, fuelled by books like Russell Blaylock's Excitotoxins - The Taste That Kills, MSG's name was utter mud. Google MSG today, and you'll find it blamed for causing asthma attacks, migraines, hypertension and heart disease, dehydration, chest pains, depression, attention deficit disorder, anaphylactic shock, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases and a host of diverse allergies.
It is making a bit of leap (WP:OR) to say he has "fringe status" based on 'popular opinion's spectacular travelling away from science' as couched in the journalist's opinion. The source does not show Blaylock's position on MSG at all, or if it itself is non-mainstream, just that his book was a spur against MSG. Even then, the article continues
However, there remains a body of respected nutritionists who are sure MSG causes problems - especially in children. And parents listen. Most doctors who offer guides to parents qualify their warnings about MSG - it may cause problems, it has been anecdotally linked with disorders. But public figures like the best-selling nutrition guru Patrick Holford are powerful advocates against MSG. He's sure the science shows that MSG causes migraines and he is convinced of the dangers of the substance to children, particularly in the child-grabber snacks like Monster Munch and Cheesy Wotsits.
If I were to WP:OR that myself I would say "Respected nutitionists and most medical doctors warn about MSG" but that is actually closer to the source. I note a more recent article from the same paper, attributed to the BMJ as listing MSG as one of the common things that can trigger a migraine attack. Whereas MSG may have been dismissed recently as not being the cause of 'Chinese restaurant sydrome', Blaylock's concerns were not that it ever did. 86.3.142.2 ( talk) 23:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that this article has been nominated for deletion. Verbal chat 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If a fringe theory appears in an article, should the fact that it is fringy, and the current mainstream academic view of the theory be consigned to a footnote, or should it appear in the main copy of the article? Davémon ( talk) 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
(â outdent) Since y'all are discussing here what I brought up there, I'll quote myself and hope for an answer here:
Thanks, Hordaland ( talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Context should also be important. E.g. the article about (say) Robert Graves's The White Goddess should (and does) have a section on criticism of that work. This needn't be replicated in the text body of every article that even mentions that book; it would be redundant, and require maintaining every separate copy. A footnote and/or wikilink â e.g., [ref] Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception.[/ref] â should suffice in that situation. Also note that this does not put Wikipedia in the position of declaring Graves's work either "fringe" or wrong (or right); this only says it was "criticized" (objectively true), and points to where those criticisms are quoted and cited. That leaves this encyclopedia a "fair broker" of ideas, not an advocate. â Sizzle FlambĂ© ( â/ â) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
... which became:...According to Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess.
...adding two lines of text to the four-word dependent clause, and overshadowing what the sentence was actually about. Adding just "the controversial[13] or "the controversial" before Graves's name wouldn't have been so obtrusive, but still would have given fair warning â perhaps even more clearly than that long text.According to the Robert Graves whose work on Greek Myth classicist Micheal Grant CBE considered to be "refashioned after [Graves] own images" and has been characterised as "startlingly distorted" and "misguided" by academics such as Richard Buxton [13] and considered only useful as a guide to Graves personal mythology [14]; Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess.
According to the Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess. Graves's theory, however, is controvercial. Academics such as Richard Buxton have characterised Graves's work as "refashioned after [Graves] own images" and "startlingly distorted" and "misguided" [13] and considered only useful as a guide to Graves personal mythology [14];
I realize that academic opinion is not monolithic. I should hope it is not. This is no excuse for discussing Demeter in terms of Graves. Graves is relevant indeed for popular opinion, but he is completely irrelevant for academic opinion. I am not sure what you are trying to do with these articles. It's ok to include the criticism in the White Goddess article, as you did, but at the same time, The White Goddess is also extremely relevant to the (neopagan) Triple Goddess article, while all of this is perfectly irrelevant at the Demeter article, which I thought was what is under discussion here. -- dab (đł) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Consider stubbing this article. Most of the sources are promotional and directly connected to the author. Is essentially WP:VANITY. 64.206.236.98 ( talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Consider stubbing this article. Lacks third-party independent sources. Is essentially WP:VANITY. 128.59.171.155 ( talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if you live in some parallel Wikipedia. Or what do you mean by "notable"? The article as it stands indicates no trace of notability. Just whence do you take your knowledge that he "does seem to be notable"? Nothing currently in the article I am sure (wrote a book, founded some sort of commune in 1970 which fell apart in 1972) -- please note that "notability" does not mean "can be googled". It means significant coverage in quotable, independent third party sources. Where are these sources? If they aren't forthcoming, simply delete the article, especially if it is a WP:BLP. -- dab (đł) 14:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Dargaville's article involves a number of highly fringy things he's involved with or promotes. The article has quite a few issues, from style and grammar to lacking cites, to bordering on advertising. I had a go at trimming the fringe a bit, but there's plenty left to do. (much of it was written in the tone of an unquestioning believer, stating as fact things like Dargaville's meditation techniques being able to cure cancer, or his physics of mind 'validating' teleportation and "alien space travel")
Point is, I don't honestly know where to start with the numerous issues, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of those more experienced and see if anyone wants to work on it, rewrite it, ignore it, or nominate it for deletion. ;)
Hatchetfish ( talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor trying to connect Stephen Hawking's remarks on dark matter to paranormal beliefs. The article itself is based on very marginal sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
An article about a software program claiming to predict the future including 9/11, the Columbia accident and 2012. I would probably go and afd the article as being not notable. Or we can wait for October 25 for its next prediction to see if it comes true or not. -- McSly ( talk) 03:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Given its connection to various fringe theories, people on here may be interested in this AFD. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has time and an interest in this, there are quite a few sources on the talk page that could be used to improve the dating section which at the moment is biased towards a fringe viewpoint. I am not around much for a while and don't have time myself. There's also a long forum style post on the talk page and although maybe it should be removed I think editors should avoid responding in kind, we all know talk pages aren't forums. Some of the links on the talk page can't be used themselves but lead to good sources. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The section Pre-Graves goddess threesomes in Triple Goddess has a {{cn}} tag on virtually every clause. I'm inclined to delete the whole section, but if anyone would like to take a crack at cleaning it up before I take WP:BOLD action, be my guest. Mangoe ( talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(undent) OK, I'm losing patience. This thing is being sat upon by a WP:SPA who is talking the thing to death. Can someone uninvolved care to take a look and see whether we are off-base in resisting him? Mangoe ( talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Colonel Wardenâ ( talk · contribs) recently nominated Reincarnation research for speedy delete as an attack page. More input and eyes requested on this and related articles ( Ian Stevenson, Jim Tucker, Reincarnation, and European Cases of the Reincarnation Type). Verbal chat 09:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed the POV tag as it doesn't seem justified. The resons given include that it is too skeptical (like the preponderance of RS) and that the lead summaries the article, including the fact that belief in reincarnation has been linked to trauma. Verbal chat 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What the heck's going on in this user's contribution history? Both the articles and the edits need examination. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Scratching around from this user's history, there seem to be a number of rather fringey-looking quantum/mind-related articles that may be in need of closer scrutiny:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
We have a fresh Indian racial drama, with Jaggi81 ( talk · contribs) bent on declaring "Aryan" anything connected to the Telugu people or the Telugu language. The factual background of this is that Andhra Pradesh was indeed an Indo-Aryan/Dravidian contact zone in the Middle Ages. Check out the contribution history to see how this is turned into the usual confused racial nonsense. -- dab (đł) 07:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has just been boldly renamed without discussion. Probably deserves some debate. At the very least the text needs changing to match to the new title of Outline of pseudoscience. (I prefer the very old title without the silly extra verbiage) Verbal chat 10:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is, or was, a dispute at Orpheus over whether he can be classified as Thracian, Greek, or Macedonian. See Talk:Orpheus, the last revision before I swung the axe, my talk page, and even ANI. Weirder and weirder, it appears that Bulgarian Orpheus is even something of a meme in Bulgarian nationalism. This stuff applied to Alexander the Great was weird enough, but when applied to a mythical figure is simply frightening.
Read and weep. Moreschi ( talk) 11:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
probably a good candidate for wp:lame Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Having a passport no doubt helped him get in and out of Hades. Don't die without your passport, and make sure you're buried with it! â Sizzle FlambĂ© ( â/ â) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Rodgarton ( talk · contribs) is engaging in persistent personal attacks against editors on the talk page of this and related articles, and his own user page (where he calls other editors "retarded"). He's had several warnings about this, and related blocks. Could an admin look into this please? Verbal chat 12:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a debate going on here about what constitutes a fringe viewpoint and what constitutes a significant minority viewpoint. Namely: is it sufficient to be able to name a few notable proponents of an idea (even though they may be notable for other things) for this idea to be considered a "significant minority viewpoint"? Opinions are most welcome.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
the significant minority viewpoint needs to be debated, and its existence needs to be recognized, in peer-reviewed academic literature. It doesn't matter so much who or how many people propose the view, it matters what impact it makes in academia. -- dab (đł) 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There are two issues of interest here, I think. 1, There has been a lot of vandalism here today (anti fluoridation TV show somewhere?), and 2, there is a talk page discussion about whether the page is "balanced". Cheers, Verbal chat 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this entirely qualifies as fringe, but the authors autiobio makes me think so. Relevant articles are:
The first article in the list seems wacky, which combined with the self-promotion angle made me bring it up here. The editor in question has also been removing tags (improvement ones and CSDs) that I and other editors placed. Rather than get into an edit war, wanted to let other eyes take a look. Best, -- Bfigura ( talk) 04:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
At Hecate, one editor thinks that "Hekat" should be given as an alternative name of the goddess in the lead sentence, based on 2 neopagan sources. Another editor thinks these are pretty poor sources on which to base the first sentence of an article about a Greco-Roman goddess. Input welcome at Talk:Hecate#Hekat. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A fringe bio which is having a lot of back and forth. Mostly consisted of a dubious biography and dubious praise. The AfD seems to rely a lot on GHITS and his large "publication" record. Verbal chat 09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
For those interested, my recent post at WP:AN#Wikipedia and nationalism - this is not getting any better might be worth looking at. Moreschi ( talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see the etymology section [ [28]]. I could not find any of the google book links the person mentioned. But I did check etymology [ [29]]. I tried to put the information there, but was reverted with what appears to be a WP:SPA in here: [ [30]]. I did a google books search and they mention the word as either Tungus and many sources relate it to the Sanskrit word. Also prominent Turkologist like Gerald Clauson are not sure if Tungus can be classified as Altaic. [ [31]]. Any help clarifying the etymology of this word is appreciated. Also I rather not edit that article, but the article requires some work. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This was just vandalism. Roll it back, a brainless s/Tungusic word/Turkic word/ replacement, the editor didn't even bother to adapt the spelling ĆĄamĂĄn. It is a paragraph I wrote back in January. It was already somewhat deteriorated before the vandalism.
The article is already aware that the word made it into Turkic. If more detail on the history of the word within Turkic is added that would be fine, but is it too much to hope that the Turkic history of the word can be documented without vandalism to the non-Turkic content? -- dab (đł) 18:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I don't know if the subject interests anyne else, but I'm already too involved in this article and want to back out if I can. Various problems, see the talk page. I won't comment myself about it, but if, as I said, anyone's interested in Egyptology they might enjoy this. Dougweller ( talk) 21:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
oh dear, this appears to be the classic WP:FRINGE case, a theory associated with a single scholar, who is even personally dominating the talkpage and giving directions on how he would like his views advertised on Wikipedia. -- dab (đł) 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not think a lot of expert knowledge is needed here. Rohl suggested this revised chronology based on "let's take the Hebrew Bible and find a historical person to match each character that appears in it". Egyptologists have looked at it and said "98% rubbish". It's a fringe theory that received some limited media coverage. It should just be merged back into the David Rohl article and presented for what it is worth. -- dab (đł) 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
this is pretty bad, and we need to look after the "revised chronology" articles more generally. A lot of undue crackpottery seems to have been festering here. See Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, apparently a clone of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies dedicated to Immanuel Velikovsky. David Rohl appears to be a product of a sizeable "shadow academy" starting with Velikovsky's Revised Chronology (1952) which engendered the Glasgow Chronology (1978). This is all 100% WP:FRINGE. Other limbs of this would include Emmet Sweeney (link to deletion debate) and Gunnar Heinsohn (a tenured sociologist who apparently fell for Velikovsky), Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered), Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis. All of this needs to be checked for notability and proper presentation, strictly within Category:Pseudohistory. Super-articles are Catastrophism and Phantom time hypothesis. The David Rohl articles appear to be the most vigorous attempt at misrepresenting this thing as part of bona fide Egyptology at the moment.
Help from more FRINGE-savvy editors is badly needed here, as we haven't got past the stage of "but it was on TV" on talk yet. -- dab (đł) 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
some more assistance here? The talkpage of this article is a regualar COI swamp and I cannot be bothered to resolve this on my own. -- dab (đł) 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is full of shaky claims and lacks anything resembling a reputable source. I suspect the best thing to do would be to delete it. (It was prodded some time ago but the prod was contested.) An editor named James Aslan ( talk · contribs) has complained about the article on the talk page, but apparently isn't familiar enough with Wikipedia procedures to address the problems effectively. Looie496 ( talk) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this topic to make any kind of realistic call on this article, but it sounds awfully fringey to me. It's currently up for AFD with zero !votes after four days, so I thought people here might want to take a look at it. Dori ⊠( Talk â Contribs â Review) ⊠23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
AfD link where the theory that the pharmaceutical industry is engaged in "competitor suppression" forms a major part of the discussion. Tim Vickers ( talk) 04:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Another eye on these articles would be useful, see the talk page of both. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Time, like light, may best be described as a union of opposites. Time may be both wave and, ultimately, particle, each in some sense a reflection of the other. The same holographic properties that have long been an accepted part of the phenomenon of the perception of three-dimensional space also suggest that interference patterns are characteristic of process. Living beings especially illustrate this: They are an instance of the superimposition of many different chemical waves, waves of gene expression and of gene inhibition, waves of energy release and energy consumption, forming the standing wave interference patterns characteristic of life. We hypothesize that this wave description is the simple form of a more complex wave that utilizes the simple wave as the primary unit in a system of such units, combined in the same way as lines are combined into trigrams and then hexagrams in the I Ching. We will argue that this more complex wave is a kind of temporal map of the changing boundary conditions that exist in space and time, including future time. We have called the quantized wave-particle, whatever its level of occurrence within the hierarchy or its duration, eschaton.
We donât think about time because we take it for granted like breathing, but consider our hypothesis that the space-time continuum is a modular wave-hierarchy. The Eschaton is a universal and fractal morphogenetic field, hypothesized to model the unfolding predispositions of space and time. This structure was decoded from the King Wen sequence of the I Ching and was the central idea that evolved in the wake of the events of La Chorrera as described in my book, True Hallucinations.
ââ Terence McKenna [1]
The above is a good example of the pseudoscientific word-salad babble that makes up the WP:PRIMARY source material for this 'theory' (to which I became exposed after responding to an earlier FTN notice on the topic).
In that time, I have discovered that:
How does one treat such material, which appears to be so far out on the fringe as to have no contact with reality, whilst still retaining notability? [belatedly signed Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC) ]
(<---) Turned it into a redirect to Terence McKenna. Goodmorningworld ( talk) 19:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have found evidence of original research and abuse of sources in this article, and have suggested it for featured article review here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1 Shoemaker's Holiday Over 193 FCs served 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myron Evans (2nd nomination) and the discussion on my talk page for background. Evans is actively discussiong Wikipedia in his blog and now The World of Hadronic Physics and The Science and Faith of Larry Horwitz have been created, written, directed and produced by Francesco Fucilla: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Fucilla. It might be worth watching the articles mentioned in his blog. Webmaster6 ( talk · contribs) seems to be an SPA devoted to Evans related articles. EinsteinâCartanâEvans theory is about his theory. He recently tried to start a private University named after him in Wales but the Welsh government wasn't impressed, so it's been renamed and moved to Hungary I believe. Dougweller ( talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Two editors have removed a reliably sourced repetition of an admittedly fringe theory, advanced by the Iranian state press, that Taitz' activities are funded by Israel. The assertion being made is that since a state-run biased source with an apparent history of anti-semitic fabrication appearss to have originated the theory, it should remain unmentioned, with a secondary assertion that WP:UNDUE prohibits mention of reliably sourced fringe theories. More input at Talk:Orly Taitz would be welcome. Jclemens ( talk) 06:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There has been a recent edit war on the page of this anti-fringe group, with one editor reverting any changes made to address issues they raised to a version with less information, and now there are accusations of POV and OR. It is claimed that the article is unbalanced, that describing positive coverage without an RS that the coverage is positive is OR, and that the article gives undue credibility to SaS. I would like more editors to review the arguments from both sides and add your own if you like. Please watchlist and join the talk page discussion. Verbal chat 08:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Blippy ( talk · contribs) is editwarring a POV tag into the article without justification, despite several requests on the talk page (unless "I dispute the neutrality" can be taken as a justification) Verbal chat 08:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is about a fringe book that I believe isn't even notable. I prodded it 9 months ago when it was still fresh. Since then it survived an AfD, based on references from other fringe publications, got a peer review and failed (unsurprisingly) a GA nomination. Some statements of fact are protected with qualifications such as "purported", but the overall treatment is completely in-universe. No wonder, since the only author himself evidently lives in this "infinite universe in which the core element is vibration", as described by an "extraterrestrial group of supernatural entities purportedly contacted by Don Elkins" and others. Comments on the talk page suggest to me that the article may not even represent the mainstream among the fringe group of believers in this stuff.
I am not sure what's the best way to deal with this cancerous article (it grows and grows). Any ideas? Hans Adler 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. Merge into Don Elkins with prejudice. I mean, even Ramtha was merged into J. Z. Knight, and notability was rather more arguable there. -- dab (đł) 18:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there isn't really anything to say about the topic because there are no mainstream sources discussing it. Except one strange book about New Age, called "Strange Weather", which doesn't so much discuss as describe it, and possibly the following. Perhaps someone has free access to this paper and can check if it's any use:
Hans Adler 19:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent article. Missed something about the 6th band (what happened to the other five?); a little more attention to detail and it's a straight win at WP:GAN. Growth is a natural condition of a healthy wikipedia article; articles are more like children than tumors. NVO ( talk) 06:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
ok, at least it is now crystal clear where the problem lies. I am glad we had this discussion. It looks like we're going to delete Ra (channeled entity) and then recreate it as a protected redirect to Don Elkins. I think this pretty much sums up this thread. -- dab (đł) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
excellent. I believe this case is so obvious, it will be difficult even for the arbcom to botch it. What we now need to do is review the Don Elkins article with regard to WP:BIO. THis is an article on a WP:FRINGE author and it does not present any evidence of notability. -- dab (đł) 15:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be caught between worlds, as it were. It also has some significant WP:SYN issues. Mangoe ( talk) 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Some debate on the homeopathy page talk here as to whether homeopathy is covered by WP:FRINGE. Clearly relevant to this noticeboard. Also, several other interesting discussions, if you can cope with the feeling of déjà vu. Verbal chat 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(remove indent) I can see how some people might get the impression of Homeopathy not being fringed when presented with the following in support of it:
The problem with all these is either the study doesn't say why the person citing it claims or it was refuted by a later study such as the following:
There is ongoing debate on the
Talk:Historicity of Jesus page regarding how much space in that article should be given to the possibility of Jesus being a myth. Much of the material seems to be based on the
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, which is apparently described as being a "cutting-edge" journal on the subject of the New Testament. I'm not sure what "cutting-edge" scholarship relating to documents that are, at least on average, about 1500 or more years old would be, but that's what the journal is about. I have a personal feeling, based on my own lack of any familiarity with the journal, that it might well include a good deal of
fringey material.
Anyway, two questions for the esteemed frequenters of this board:
Please read the guideline. Blueboar ( talk) 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar, this is beside the point. The point is that Christ myth theory is a fringy content fork of Historicity of Jesus. The topic does have notability. The article on the topic is at Historicity of Jesus. You cannot use the (undisputed) notability of the scholarly discussion on the historicity of Jesus to defend the creation of an article dedicated to various selected fringe approaches to that same topic. Please have a glance at the talk archives. I have made this very point about six times over the past few years, and I never got more than hand-waving. The article cannot even delineate its scope wrt Historicity of Jesus for, ahem, chrissakes. Apparently, if a book disputes the historicity of Jesus and if it is dumbed down sensationalism (as opposed to contributing to the academic discussion), apparently it then belongs in the "Christ myth" article. If it's serious, it belongs in the "historicity" article. This isn't acceptable. -- dab (đł) 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As Dbachmann says, the "Christ myth theory" is the idea that there was no historical Jesus. This is an identifiable concept! What's more, there exists academic literature that treats this concept and the writers who have advocated it. Albert Schweitzer devoted two chapters of Quest of the Historical Jesus to it, and at least three recent books have covered the history of the theory in some detail: Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, William Weaver The historical Jesus in the twentieth century [6], and Clinton Bennett in Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images [7]. Each of these books devotes at least a chapter or substantial section to the idea that there was no historical Jesus, and they focus on the authors who have espoused the theory over the last century and a half (or so). You can see a list of the authors each source covers near the end of this section in the talk archives, and see that Schweitzer, Van Voorst, Weaver, and Bennett largely focus on the same authors, with Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, and William Benjamin Smith being the most important.
So there's an identifiable topic here, and it's notable--it receives substantial coverage in a variety of academic sources. The problem is, as Dbachmann says, that in its current state the article presents itself as an alternative version of Historicity of Jesus. But that simply means that the article should be fixed so that it's not a content fork, but a sub-article of Historicity of Jesus (or perhaps Quest for the Historical Jesus), which gives more detail about one aspect of thinking on the historical Jesus. --Akhilleus ( talk) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Was ok until a few days ago. No one takes her 'Pesher' (which it isn't really) seriously, no one can reproduce it, etc, but it's being edited by a fan. It could use some help esp. as I'm busy this weekend. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The article on Parapsychology is up for a featured article review, due to many problems. Please participate. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Should this article exist? The surveys were not run by any major polling company, they were by and large published in a fairly fringe journal, and it's hard to see such a tiny part of the topic as notable, even if the surveys were considered reliable. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is an absolute mess. The quality of the writing is poor, it is credulous, it venerates the subject, and is very very poorly sourced. Some help would be appreciated as I am having huge co;puter proble;s, and I've already been called "suspicious" and had ;y editing generally called into auestion by a brand new editor on the talk page... Thanks Verbal chat 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yakub, as we all know, was an ancient Saudi scientist who created the white race on the isle of Patmos. A new editor has recently radically re-edited the article on this, er, historical individual as if he were real, and he repeatedly restores this truth. The dates also suggest that Yakub died 150 years before he was born. Paul B ( talk) 00:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Critical Mind ( talk · contribs) has not resumed edit-warring after their block expired. They have vented some spleen at Talk:Melanin theory, but no further article space edits. -- dab (đł) 10:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about this? A new editor is going around adding his own essays to various entries from Swedenborgianism to Cult. S/he also created New Revelation of Jesus Christ. It seems like an Evangelical polemic against "false prophets". Googling the term turns up all kinds of things, including to some extent various criticisms of prophesy "outside the bible" labeled as such by conservative christian groups (e.g. against Mormon prophesy). I can't find any reliable sources on this, but I have to admit not looking too hard. Any thoughts? PelleSmith ( talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have taken it upon myself to "encyclopedicize" this article. More references are still needed though. But Torchrunner ( talk · contribs) needs watching, editor is apparently here to make articles "more neutral" by rewriting them from an evangelical viewpoint, mostly going on about how things they disagree with are "cults". -- dab (đł) 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, the AAH page is getting more discussion and traffic, with disagreement on how to represent its status in the scientific community. Extra input is appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposing merge of Exopolitics into Michael Salla. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
At the moment this article seems to exist only to give publicity to Wayne Herschel (eyes on that please also). Any suggestions as to what to do with it? A redirect to Dan Brown's forthcoming book? Does the statement that it's also in another book affect what we do? A Google search only suggests it will be in Brown's book. Dougweller ( talk) 07:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Not another Dan Brown book. This must be the worst author ever to meddle with these topics. His commercial success is a sad testimony for the intellectual state of the USA. Seriously, I am not a jealous person, but when I see that a boring, clueless hack gets the publicity and the millions that would properly belong to the many authors that are clearly his betters, I feel angry.
On topic though, this article obviously needs to be done away with by diligent merging. -- dab (đł) 13:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The real problem article is Wayne Herschel. I was against deleting the Elkins/Rueckert one, but by the same standards, the Herschel article should also go: this is just yet another guy who wrote a book on pyramids and ancient astronauts. Orion Correlation Theory also bears looking into ("Egyptology" ineed). -- dab (đł) 13:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
this "cipher" isn't in any way notable. It is one of literaly dozens of similar diagrams which you find in each of the dozens of manuscripts pertaining to the Clavicula tradition. It is just one random occult diagram out of a huge tradition of verz simlar diagrams. It just so happened to catch Mr. Herschel's fancy, but there is probably no objective reason to discuss this diagram in particular. -- dab (đł) 17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
sigh, it appears Mr. Herschel is not the only one infatuated with this pictogram. -- dab (đł) 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Could someone with more experience in the application of NPOV to fringe theories and pseudoscience on Wikipedia please drop by Talk:Astral projection. There is an edit war brewing over the appropriate way to address mainstream psychological interpretations of the perception of out-of-body experiences, and the outcome does not seem consistent with WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. In attempting to frame the lead in a manner consistent with a reasonably mainstream account, I have been rather incivilly acused of attempting to "vandalize" the article. Since I do not feel that I personally can remain constructive in such a hostile environment (indeed, I think I would only make things worse at this point), I would ask that a disinterested party please examine the matter. I will recuse myself from editing the article and its talk page for a period of one week, or until the matter has reached a resolution. SĆawomir BiaĆy ( talk) 22:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I need more eyes on this article. The overwhelming view is that these people died of accidental drownings in completely unrelated cases due to being drunk etc., but some minor self-declared profilers for hire have decided that this must be a bunch of interconnected murders, and of course because it sounds cooler some edutainment shows (like Larry King Live) have given some of these people air time. I maintain that by WP:UNDUEWEIGHT that the primary view presented must be what the police and FBI say (no murders) and that other views obviously can be mentioned but not everyone with a theory on it and not just because Larry King talked to them. There's very little input on the talk page, and what is there is usually people out to promote the view. Some outside opinions on the matter would be helpful and appreciated. DreamGuy ( talk) 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
While getting rid of ufoarea.com from Wikipedia because you have to pay to see the content, I ran into this article which anyone interested in UFOs, etc might want to look at. Dougweller ( talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Things are getting surreal at Jakob Lorber (Austrian mystic) and Great Gospel of John (his magnum opus). We have two users, and neither of them can write tuppence worth of content, and neither of them will condescend to spend five minutes to learn what Wikipedia is even trying to do.
Between themselves they make a fair mess of things, as they aren't even reverting each other but simply pile on their own material "referenced" with random urls. -- dab (đł) 11:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
For anyone interested, there's a discussion currently in play over at talk:2012 millenarianism (recently renamed from 2012 doomsday prediction) about what should be the most appropriate name for this article, with its scope covering various 2012-related speculations/predictions/theorising/phenomena. Arguments for/against various current title proposals are at Talk:2012_millenarianism#Definition_of_Millenarianism and Talk:2012_millenarianism#Formal_discussion_on_page_name, and there's an open poll at Talk:2012_millenarianism#Title_of_article_--_the_.28single_transferable.29_vote.21. Contribs & thoughts welcomed. -- cjllw Ê TALK 03:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to note, this has now gone to Featured article removal candidates. I suspect it is not my place to say more than that. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Two editors, Xellas ( talk · contribs) and Paul H. ( talk · contribs), are in a dispute about the appropriate level of coverage for the ideas of Robert Sarmast, and have escalated to the level of a WQA. It seems to me that the best solution is to bring more eyes to the question, and that this is the right place to do it. Looie496 ( talk) 15:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Paul A. LaViolette . . . is an American scientist who has proposed unorthodox physics theories and interpretations of the Bible, Mayan pictograms, the Zodiac and ancient Vedic stories. . . . LaViolette is the current president of the Starburst Foundation, an interdisciplinary scientific research institute."
This article was started on August 19 (by a now-blocked user) and seems to be generating some rancor, including this thread at ANI, and this AfD that closed without consensus on August 27. Fringe-experienced reviewers might be useful. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
We have Satbir Singh ( talk · contribs), still merrily spamming us with his unspeakable Kamboja essays. I just discovered Komedes, but there are lots of others. I would be grateful if I wasn't the only one trying to contain this. -- dab (đł) 11:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A relatively new article about a fringe writer which could use some attention, I came across this today when its creator tried to add the author's website and sps book to Archaeoastronomy. Another attempt to publicise Herschel is here. Dougweller ( talk) 08:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been told by the UK Wikipedia authority Joseph Seddon Re:Ticket#2009090210032671 that I must be removed. Other authors with less status than my own have the right to be on wikipedia but due to the material concerned, I have absolutely no right to be there. All that is left there is the image that I rendered on a separate page... and even my copyrights as the artist have been removed too for the Solomon Key cipher now to be public property. They are out right lying that it has expired. (it was only there two months and copyright text on it now removed) I am releasing all documentation to the media for next week with the other attacks to try and stop my book project that are underway right now. I presented all the third party references they asked for, TV coverage, Coast to Coast radio, many newspapers covering my findings as discoveries, not just an author, two periodicals on the Solomon key and more.
Authors like David Ike that self published, had no media covered historical discoveries, and claims the Queen of England is an alien has a full page spread."
this image -- if it's a manual redrawing, we should delete the image as unencyclopedic. I was under the impression that it is a facsimile directly from the BM manuscript. If it isn't, we don't have any use for it, we should acquire an actual facsimile instead. If Herschel copied this by hand I must admit he did a pretty convincing job with the Hebrew cursive. -- dab (đł) 10:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
ok, here is an actual facsimile of the page in question. I am convinced that Herschel did not redraw this but simply used photographic reproduction. What he apparently did do, though, was adding a cheesy "parchment-style" background (the actual manuscript is on paper). I will replace the cheesy image with the more encyclopedic one at commons. -- dab (đł) 10:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidently, all research on psychic powers this fellow did was completely successful and uncriticised. Who knew? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 11:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and
Precognition presents itself as entirely a real phenomena.
Shoemaker's Holiday Over
204 FCs served 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, Pavel Stepanek was never, ever shown to be anything but a full-out psychic phenomenon.
Displacement (parapsychology) shows that if you guess wrongly in a trial, but would have guessed rightly if you had made that guess at some other time, that can be used as evidence of parapsychology too, and there is absolutely no problem with this, indeed, the article says it's a statistically proven phenomena.
...Ah, screw it. Just check the contributions of Rodgarton ( talk · contribs). I caught him abusing sources horribly at Parapsychology, and simple requests afterwards like "You claim this paper on card guessing significantly advanced the field of statistics. Can you show it was ever cited in a non-parapsychological context?" were met with non sequiturs like "I don't need to prove it! It was published in a non-parapsychological journal, that's all that's necessary to show parapsychology advanced statistics!" and, later, "Other papers in that journal are cited." Copious personal attacks were also provided.
Rodgarton is pretty much the epitome of a POV-pushing single purpose account, and a thorough review is almost certainly necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
ETA:
Joseph Banks Rhine is pretty much an advertisement for parapsychology, start to finish - criticism is only mentioned briefly, and immediately belittled. This is the fellow Langmuir invented the term
pathological science to describe the studies of.
Shoemaker's Holiday Over
204 FCs served 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I should mention the reason I was checking these articles is because their creator abuses sources horribly (for an analysis of one such section he wrote, and his increasingly irrational defenses, see the first big table at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1â), and is purely a pro-Parapsychology SPA.. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you think an RFC or similar on him would help? He isn't really here to improve the encyclopedia. just to push his POV. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered something very interesting:
26 July, at Meta-analysis, he makes the following change
Previous | Rodgarton's edit |
---|---|
The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. [...] | The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. . However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates. [1] This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem). |
The claim he makes there is almost certainly false, see http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/12/579 - a comprehensive analysis of the history of metanalyses that makes no such claim, whereas his cite for the extraordinary claim is to a conference paper presented at a fringe theory conference - however, more interestingly, despite what he wrote there, he makes a very different, very much more inflated claim in Parapsychology:
Parapsychology, 11 August.
[8]
â | [...] A monographic review of the first sixty years of organised parapsychological research has been noted as the first meta-analysis in the history of science; [...] | â |
Same reference. Claim he knew was false. Bad. Faith. Editor. Let's ban him. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
pseudoskeptic: someone who is skeptical more than enough, to the point of WP:COI.. for an encylopedic definition; Pseudoskeptic#Pseudoskepticism. Logos5557 ( talk) 07:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
AfD Open, interested parties may want to have a look. Simonm223 ( talk) 02:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed what I saw as a pov statement, including something about a race of giants ( Zamzumim}, and it was reverted by Til Eulenspiegel with the edit summary " the part you blanked makes no mention of any "giants", it merely states that the Hebrews conquered Canaan which is only disputed by fringe". Fringe has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, is Til right? Thanks. I've removed the text again. Dougweller ( talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Who actually disputes that the Hebrews conquered Canaan? Are those few who dispute it now the "mainstream", and everyone else "fringe"? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The conquest is certainly not fringe: as TE says, a lot of scholarship is dedicated to the idea that the outlines of history in the OT are more or less accurate. IMO, biblical accounts of history should not be deleted by a rational that they are fringe. OTOH, the conquest should not be presented simply as fact, but as the biblical account. What TE has restored is not neutral or impartial for this reason: "probably the best account of the Hebrew conquest"--the OT is the only account of the Hebrew conquest.
kwami (
talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Til (aka Codex Sinaiticus) has a long history of bible-thumping pov-pushing. Typically insisting on using the Bible directly as a secondary source, as evident by his complaint that we are "treating the Bible as fringe". The Hebrew Bible is, of course, neither fringe nor non-fringe, since it isn't a secondary source in the first place. It is a primary source, a compilation of Iron Age Hebrew texts. Be that as it may, the paragraph in question can be salvaged by improving it: it is almost never a question of "do we keep this material, yes or no" but one of how do we need to edit this to make it acceptable. Now the point here is conflation of the Biblical account with other evidence. In the topic of Canaan, the Biblical account is certainly highly notable, but it should be made very clear which bits are taken from the bible and which aren't. Consequently, the passage
is not acceptable. We need one paragraph or section detailing the account in the Hebrew Bible, and another one detailing Egyptian sources, but we cannot conflate the two. Obviously, Deuteronomy and Joshuah are in no way a reference to the "many earlier Egyptian sources", which need to be specified in order to satisfy WP:CITE. -- dab (đł) 09:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Refocusing on the content question: Assertions that the Biblical accounts of ancient Middle Eastern history are factually accurate are almost certainly fringe views. This is akin to stating that Homer's famous version of the Trojan War is a factually accurate recounting of history. Kernels of truth exist, but we must mainly rely on current mainstream scholarship to identify those portions (and to identify how they've been altered in the narrative) and most certainly should not take Biblical acocunts at face value. Jericho's walls are the prime example of the conquest: The walls did certainly fall, but the city was in area then prone to earthquakes and the city itself was a ghost town during the purported time of Joshua (or at least thus is general consensus of secular archaeology). In a similar vein, the overwhelming majority of scholarship sees a complete lack of evidence for the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. It is also important to note that modern archaeology generally considers the Iron Age Hebrews to be fundamentally Canaanite in language and culture even as late as five centuries after the supposed conquest (even extending into the time after the united monarchy is said to have split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel). Accounts with some considerable distance in time from this period are generally considered to have a greater foundation in historical fact, but are still usually regarded as heavily biased and edited versions of historical truth at best.
tl;dr version: Insisting that the Bible is an accurate representation of Iron Age history in the region is a fringe view. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
A page created exclusively for the purpose of ethnic bickering among Turks, Armenians and Kurds, under the pretext of the name of a cat breed. The article didn't even bother to link to the article on the cat in question before I touched it. -- dab (đł) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be a whole heap of forks on this topic:
Merging the whole shebang into a single neutral article would seem to be appropriate. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
In a content dispute Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl has been removed [10] pr WP:Fringe & WP:UNDUE and not a WP:RS from an article. Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 06:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This fringe blp may be unintentionally hilarious, but I think it suffers from several problems, including coatracking, peacocking and puffery, an unencyclopedic and credulous tone, and undue weight. It's a big job though, I'm not sure where to start - and I'm sure tagging will be bitterly resisted. Related awful article Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010... Verbal chat 08:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I redirected the UFO Hypothesis article to the article of its main proponent. "The Fatima UFO Hypothesis" article's citations were exclusively to proponents' books published by Anomalist Books and references that do not address the UFO theory. Thus, the article was highly inappropriate in the context of both "no original research" and notability. It served as little more than a soapbox to expound on proponent's views. The redirect was reversed by Zacherystaylor ( talk · contribs) with the edit summary of "redirect and virtual deletion done without discussion or good explanation". I have reinstated the redirect and left a message for Zacherystaylor explaining the problems with the article ( User talk:Zacherystaylor#Fatima UFO Hypothesis, permalink). Additional eyes would be welcome on this topic. Also, did I take the correct action here? Is my rationale sound or lacking? Vassyana ( talk) 00:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Apparently meridians have been proven to exist, and light proven to flow through them. This article is a spammy mess of poor sources and COI advertising. More eyes please. Verbal chat 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with pseudoscience take a look at Alfred Matthew Hubbard? This article has some strange fringe claims: "In addition to being a major proponent of LSD, earlier in life, Al Hubbard invented a device at the age of 16 which provided enough energy to power a boat around Portage Bay, on Lake Union, in Seattle, Washington." They are saying that he invented the "most powerful nuclear battery ever created, and as early as 1919, easily making it the first" â which definitely sets off some red flags in my mind. This article needs major review and cleanup and I don't have the knowledge or resources to do it myself. *** Crotalus *** 15:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not especially bad but there's no strong warning like "THIS IS FALSE".. and there are some pro-dowsing sources that are presented as reliable. Does anyone have access to some reliable studies? .froth. ( talk) 19:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(moved here from policy RfC by Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
If some more medical type doctors could look over this article and check whether it is fringe or not, and accurate, I'd be grateful at least. There are a few warning signs - such as "despite FDA approval there is no evidence that it works..." (paraphrase) Verbal chat 18:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of cleaning up this article but would appreciate outside eyes (drum shot) and review. I'd be shocked that this topic was presented with such a high level of credence, but I've been around here long enough to know better. There seems to be some connection with the Bates Method, which I remember to have been a contentious topic but don't know the specifics of. Skinwalker ( talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've put up a report on him up on ANI. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Article plagued by normal notable-fringe-researcher problems with PoV, Peacockery, etc. Please help. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of good information on this article but there are a few editors who insist on adding npov stuff or poorly referenced pseudoscience and paranormal information; in particular there are a lot of links to BLT Research Team INC. which is a not-peer-reviewed journal about crop circles and Haselhoff, Eltjo (2001) "The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles:Scientific Research & Urban Legends", Frog Ltd, ISBNÂ 1583940464. Frog publishing is a small publisher that focuses on the paranormal. Neither of these seem to be reliable sources but I'm afraid removing them will result in an edit war since these sources provide the best evidence for paranormal explanations of crop circles. Could either of these be considered reliable sources? Does anyone have suggestions for fixing the articles npov problems? Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Article currently undergoing astroturfing to give the possibility that he has psychic abilities undue weight. - Nunh-huh 11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this one is that there are virtually no reliable sources, no one takes it seriously enough, so we are ending up with a number of fringe sites used as links. See the edit history as well, please. Thanks. (any time you see Clyde Winters name, be assured it is fringe). Dougweller ( talk) 17:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Subject is a scientist with an interest in fringe science. He seems to have written the article himself and his English is poor. Hence the article is listed for wikification, which is how I found it, and now as having multiple issues. Someone with a physics background could probably knock it into shape more quickly than I can. Is the subject notable anyway? Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Funky sources. Clean or AfD. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It's up for AfD. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a terrible recreation (sort of) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dropa. That was a better article. Neither had much about the Dropa -- this one is actually about the so-called Dropa stones. Dougweller ( talk) 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a fringe topic that is occasionally full of many unsourced claims. Please add WP:RS, and otherwise improve the page. Verbal chat 09:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Fringe religious figure, huge biography, few citations, needs serious pruning. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This pending AfD might benefit from review by some fringe-policy savants.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
See here: [13], [14], [15]. Can someone keep an eye on this? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 10:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
User is aware of the decision per [ this AE thread]. However, since he's a single purpose account, he got a pass, after promising, er, nothing. But hey, Wikipedia is an experiment in internet sociology, and if people just blocked individuals like Cs32en the second they appeared there wouldn't be the requisite drama, right? Hipocrite ( talk) 13:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Brought to attention of this board as it involves WP:EXTREMIST AfD up. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Colloidal silver (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is sort of a perennial trouble spot. "Conventional" authorities like the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the FDA, and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration tend to uniformly agree that it is ineffective and potentially toxic. However, a positive view of colloidal silver is represented by editors active on the page well in excess of its actual representation among experts in the field. Arguments put forth on the talk page tend to include personal websites, editorial testimonials (colloidal-silver-cured-my-dog-without-all-the-side-effects-of-conventional-antibiotics - seriously), medical treatises published in 1913, and the ever-popular conventional-medicine-was-wrong-about-leeches-too argument. Most recently, a negative study of Internet-marketed colloidal silver ( PMID 15114827) was excised as "a tinpot study from Botswana". I would appreciate additional input. MastCell Talk 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I had written a short paragraph on colloidal silver for the article alternative medicine over a year ago, but it was removed there quite soon and I didn't bother with fighting the fringe advocates back then, I already had enough of that. Here is that paragraph, I think it could be quite useful.
I'm going to see whether I can get the articles from the medicine journals from the 1940s that are mentioned on the homepage, and if I'll get some support with that, I'll expand the article. Zara1709 ( talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Zara, Maybe comments like colloidal silver has been "pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies" could be considered somewhat biased language (and probably inaccurate too). But anyway, all the points you make are already covered in the colloidal silver article. The fact that silver can cause argyria is mentioned numerous times. BRangifer, I've read those policy statements you cited but I don't see that they justify including a word for word personal blast such as the one from Rosemary Jacobs about a product (CSP) that has virtually been unavailable for years. Its supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a blog. DHawker ( talk) 08:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Pertaining to MastCell's initial paragraph, I presented the "medical treatises published in 1913", some of which were research by doctors published in the Lancet and BMJ, for the HISTORY section of colloidal silver. In spite of the fact that colloidal silver was commonly used by doctors at that time, MastCell questioned using historical research in the history section because it was "outdated" [20]. Perhaps it is MastCell's opinion that using references from the time that you are talking about is "outdated", but I don't think this is wikipedia policy. stmrlbs| talk 06:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This article, which was previously a racist troll magnet called Race and crime, has reared its ugly head again. Some have tried to fix the problems, and the article is better than that it replaced, but it still contains (until I removed them anyway) raw statistics, in a table format without any contextualising or explanatory text, and some fringe theories, one factoid sections (removed), and a section "Racially motivated crime" which contains a paragraph about one rather dubious theory. Many many more eyes and opinions please (I may be being overly harsh as I remember the problems with this article in the past, so please can as many of you go and have a look, and see what you can do). Verbal chat 15:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note the recreation of Astrotheology. PelleSmith ( talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Since I last touched this article in 2005, apparently this person has invented time travel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovondatr. Uncle G ( talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a report on a bizarre project that claims that any tiny statistical variation in a random number generator that occurs for any length of time any time within a few days of an event the authors deem important is proof of psychic powers.
In short, a pretty bad article. A lot of the articles in Category:Parapsychology could use a similar cleanup, since a lot of true believers have pulled out the crankiest research in parapsychology and made promotional articles out of it. More mainstream parapsychological articles tend to be better. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
All this renewed attention to the article, and yet still no mention there of the definitive project that stands a chance of pegging the meters and silencing the critics for good. I may get around to adding it myself, but then again it might be more productive to use that time to train for this year's big December event. Tim Shuba ( talk) 03:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
There's this article at Zero-point field that seems to promote various alternative theories about quantum mechanics and zero point field in a manner not consistent with Wikipedia's policies on the issue. I went and started to discuss it on the talk page at that article, and they seemed to want to turn it into a discussion about the validity of the theories and not how it conforms to WP policy or fails to do so. It seems to involve a group of anon editors, and they're threatening to pull the dispute tag. What to do about this? You should also review the discussion at Talk:Zero-point field too (the last couple of threads about neutrality dispute). mike4ty4 ( talk) 07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
An IP has been doing a whitewash of this article, stripping all critical material [21]. He's at 5RR, for the record. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 06:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Could do with some attention. Arguments about notability and adding dubious sources countering criticism, and not only giving the article a criticism section but a response to criticism section - which I find very unencylopedic. Anyway, could do with some TLC from assorted editors here. Please join in! Verbal chat 21:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed the merge, however the other editor has again removed some of the only reliably sourced material - the criticism - from the page, in apparent retaliation that I removed his quote and WP:SYNTH. Verbal chat 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Needs some attention, Systemizer ( talk · contribs) is adding what is apparently OR, but eyes from more scientific types would be useful. Dougweller ( talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Clear content fork with Random Number Generator. Article creator is opposing redirect. Third party opinions welcome. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
{Undent}I wouldn't entirely rule out hidden variable theories within quantum mechanics; it's fully possible that there is deterministic crap happening that we just haven't observed or effectively described with math just yet. But that's getting a bit off topic. I have no intention of removing information from random number generator either, I understand your concern but I'm reticent to allow a POV fork in the off chance that somebody deletes properly referenced discussion to a fringe use of hardware derived random number generators. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Capoid race had a lot of original research and didn't make clear that the term was no longer current. I've dealt with that, but I've also come across Africoid peoples, which is a harder nut to crack. There's debate on the talk page that flags up the problems with the article, but broadly it has a lot of personal opinion, original research, poor sourcing, and confused writing. A reduction and merge into Negroid has been proposed. Fences& Windows 17:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Race of ancient Egyptians needs to be reverted to the last sane revision. We have rules for a reason. The "historical racial categories" articles are a huge magnet for current-day racists, and we need to impose some sort of order there. The best move may be to merge all of them (excepting some three major ones) into scientific racism. As it is, the Iranid race article gets disproportional attention from Iranian racialist cranks, the Africoid peoples/ Negroid race one gets disproportional attention from Pan-Africanist racialist cranks, etc. Having a main article on historical racial categories more generally will even out this effect. This whole racism issue remains a huge unsolved problem for Wikipedia. On one hand, we have politically correct hysteria preventing detached coverage of perfectly encyclopedic topics like the Race and crime debate in the US, while at the same time, positive racist fringe theories are running unchecked at all these little "this race", "that race" articles. On the Afrocentrist side, I think we are seeing a concerted effort at pushing the theories of [[S.O.Y Keita] way beyond their WP:DUE relevance -- dab (đł) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There have been several previous threads on this noticeboard about the Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science, a web organization either down a back lane in East Croydon or somewhere in Hungary. (It is connected with The Alpha Institute for Advanced Study, a web organization either in a village on the outskirts of Swansea or somewhere in Hungary.) This organization is devoted to pseudoscience and awards prizes mostly to those who have contested well-established parts of theoretical physics. Prizewinners include Myron Evans, Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Diego Lucio Rapoport, Alwyn Van der Merwe, Lawrence Paul Horwitz, Florentin Smarandache, other editors of Progress in Physics and Franco Selleri, whose BLP is currently up for deletion here. The organization at first bore the name of Ruggero Santilli; it appears to be financed by Francesco Fucilla, who has edited wikipedia himself (his editing style is instantly recognizable because he uses capitalization and exclamation marks, London IPs and often adds his own signature, a tell-tale sign). Webmaster6 ( talk · contribs) has been slowly adding pages to wikipedia connected with Fucilla and this organization. Several articles on promotional videos have been deleted (starting with "The Universe of Myron Evans"; here's a video of Dunning-Davies extolling Santilli's theories [22]). Both Evans and Fucilla run off-wiki commentary on the BLPs they wish to add to wikipedia and the deletion process: Evans on his blog at www.aias.us [23] and Fucilla on the Telesio-Galilei website [24]. I believe that Myron Evans actually threatened WMF with action over his BLP (later confirmed by User:Daniel), which resulted in his own biographical stub being put up for deletion by me some time back. (A neutral description of his eponymous theory took its place.) I think more eyes are needed on this little walled garden of articles and in particular the contributions of Webmaster6 who appears to have a WP:COI. No need for wikipedia to become a mirror site for pseudoscientific websites, even if there is a slightly comical aspect to the whole thing (Santilli's magnegas - an alternative fuel based on his own new molecule, made from reprocessed human waste, tested on a Ferrari). Mathsci ( talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced BLP about a hero doctor of the alternative health movement. The section that describes his battles with the FDA doesn't seem very balanced. He's an Associate Editor of Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, so definitely very fringe. Fences& Windows 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a source, I can understand your position now. The paper you quote is from 2004 and says
But popular opinion has travelled - spectacularly - in the opposite direction to science. By the early eighties, fuelled by books like Russell Blaylock's Excitotoxins - The Taste That Kills, MSG's name was utter mud. Google MSG today, and you'll find it blamed for causing asthma attacks, migraines, hypertension and heart disease, dehydration, chest pains, depression, attention deficit disorder, anaphylactic shock, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases and a host of diverse allergies.
It is making a bit of leap (WP:OR) to say he has "fringe status" based on 'popular opinion's spectacular travelling away from science' as couched in the journalist's opinion. The source does not show Blaylock's position on MSG at all, or if it itself is non-mainstream, just that his book was a spur against MSG. Even then, the article continues
However, there remains a body of respected nutritionists who are sure MSG causes problems - especially in children. And parents listen. Most doctors who offer guides to parents qualify their warnings about MSG - it may cause problems, it has been anecdotally linked with disorders. But public figures like the best-selling nutrition guru Patrick Holford are powerful advocates against MSG. He's sure the science shows that MSG causes migraines and he is convinced of the dangers of the substance to children, particularly in the child-grabber snacks like Monster Munch and Cheesy Wotsits.
If I were to WP:OR that myself I would say "Respected nutitionists and most medical doctors warn about MSG" but that is actually closer to the source. I note a more recent article from the same paper, attributed to the BMJ as listing MSG as one of the common things that can trigger a migraine attack. Whereas MSG may have been dismissed recently as not being the cause of 'Chinese restaurant sydrome', Blaylock's concerns were not that it ever did. 86.3.142.2 ( talk) 23:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that this article has been nominated for deletion. Verbal chat 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If a fringe theory appears in an article, should the fact that it is fringy, and the current mainstream academic view of the theory be consigned to a footnote, or should it appear in the main copy of the article? Davémon ( talk) 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
(â outdent) Since y'all are discussing here what I brought up there, I'll quote myself and hope for an answer here:
Thanks, Hordaland ( talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Context should also be important. E.g. the article about (say) Robert Graves's The White Goddess should (and does) have a section on criticism of that work. This needn't be replicated in the text body of every article that even mentions that book; it would be redundant, and require maintaining every separate copy. A footnote and/or wikilink â e.g., [ref] Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception.[/ref] â should suffice in that situation. Also note that this does not put Wikipedia in the position of declaring Graves's work either "fringe" or wrong (or right); this only says it was "criticized" (objectively true), and points to where those criticisms are quoted and cited. That leaves this encyclopedia a "fair broker" of ideas, not an advocate. â Sizzle FlambĂ© ( â/ â) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
... which became:...According to Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess.
...adding two lines of text to the four-word dependent clause, and overshadowing what the sentence was actually about. Adding just "the controversial[13] or "the controversial" before Graves's name wouldn't have been so obtrusive, but still would have given fair warning â perhaps even more clearly than that long text.According to the Robert Graves whose work on Greek Myth classicist Micheal Grant CBE considered to be "refashioned after [Graves] own images" and has been characterised as "startlingly distorted" and "misguided" by academics such as Richard Buxton [13] and considered only useful as a guide to Graves personal mythology [14]; Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess.
According to the Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess. Graves's theory, however, is controvercial. Academics such as Richard Buxton have characterised Graves's work as "refashioned after [Graves] own images" and "startlingly distorted" and "misguided" [13] and considered only useful as a guide to Graves personal mythology [14];
I realize that academic opinion is not monolithic. I should hope it is not. This is no excuse for discussing Demeter in terms of Graves. Graves is relevant indeed for popular opinion, but he is completely irrelevant for academic opinion. I am not sure what you are trying to do with these articles. It's ok to include the criticism in the White Goddess article, as you did, but at the same time, The White Goddess is also extremely relevant to the (neopagan) Triple Goddess article, while all of this is perfectly irrelevant at the Demeter article, which I thought was what is under discussion here. -- dab (đł) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Consider stubbing this article. Most of the sources are promotional and directly connected to the author. Is essentially WP:VANITY. 64.206.236.98 ( talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Consider stubbing this article. Lacks third-party independent sources. Is essentially WP:VANITY. 128.59.171.155 ( talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if you live in some parallel Wikipedia. Or what do you mean by "notable"? The article as it stands indicates no trace of notability. Just whence do you take your knowledge that he "does seem to be notable"? Nothing currently in the article I am sure (wrote a book, founded some sort of commune in 1970 which fell apart in 1972) -- please note that "notability" does not mean "can be googled". It means significant coverage in quotable, independent third party sources. Where are these sources? If they aren't forthcoming, simply delete the article, especially if it is a WP:BLP. -- dab (đł) 14:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Dargaville's article involves a number of highly fringy things he's involved with or promotes. The article has quite a few issues, from style and grammar to lacking cites, to bordering on advertising. I had a go at trimming the fringe a bit, but there's plenty left to do. (much of it was written in the tone of an unquestioning believer, stating as fact things like Dargaville's meditation techniques being able to cure cancer, or his physics of mind 'validating' teleportation and "alien space travel")
Point is, I don't honestly know where to start with the numerous issues, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of those more experienced and see if anyone wants to work on it, rewrite it, ignore it, or nominate it for deletion. ;)
Hatchetfish ( talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor trying to connect Stephen Hawking's remarks on dark matter to paranormal beliefs. The article itself is based on very marginal sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
An article about a software program claiming to predict the future including 9/11, the Columbia accident and 2012. I would probably go and afd the article as being not notable. Or we can wait for October 25 for its next prediction to see if it comes true or not. -- McSly ( talk) 03:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Given its connection to various fringe theories, people on here may be interested in this AFD. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has time and an interest in this, there are quite a few sources on the talk page that could be used to improve the dating section which at the moment is biased towards a fringe viewpoint. I am not around much for a while and don't have time myself. There's also a long forum style post on the talk page and although maybe it should be removed I think editors should avoid responding in kind, we all know talk pages aren't forums. Some of the links on the talk page can't be used themselves but lead to good sources. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The section Pre-Graves goddess threesomes in Triple Goddess has a {{cn}} tag on virtually every clause. I'm inclined to delete the whole section, but if anyone would like to take a crack at cleaning it up before I take WP:BOLD action, be my guest. Mangoe ( talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(undent) OK, I'm losing patience. This thing is being sat upon by a WP:SPA who is talking the thing to death. Can someone uninvolved care to take a look and see whether we are off-base in resisting him? Mangoe ( talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Colonel Wardenâ ( talk · contribs) recently nominated Reincarnation research for speedy delete as an attack page. More input and eyes requested on this and related articles ( Ian Stevenson, Jim Tucker, Reincarnation, and European Cases of the Reincarnation Type). Verbal chat 09:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed the POV tag as it doesn't seem justified. The resons given include that it is too skeptical (like the preponderance of RS) and that the lead summaries the article, including the fact that belief in reincarnation has been linked to trauma. Verbal chat 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What the heck's going on in this user's contribution history? Both the articles and the edits need examination. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Scratching around from this user's history, there seem to be a number of rather fringey-looking quantum/mind-related articles that may be in need of closer scrutiny:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
We have a fresh Indian racial drama, with Jaggi81 ( talk · contribs) bent on declaring "Aryan" anything connected to the Telugu people or the Telugu language. The factual background of this is that Andhra Pradesh was indeed an Indo-Aryan/Dravidian contact zone in the Middle Ages. Check out the contribution history to see how this is turned into the usual confused racial nonsense. -- dab (đł) 07:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has just been boldly renamed without discussion. Probably deserves some debate. At the very least the text needs changing to match to the new title of Outline of pseudoscience. (I prefer the very old title without the silly extra verbiage) Verbal chat 10:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is, or was, a dispute at Orpheus over whether he can be classified as Thracian, Greek, or Macedonian. See Talk:Orpheus, the last revision before I swung the axe, my talk page, and even ANI. Weirder and weirder, it appears that Bulgarian Orpheus is even something of a meme in Bulgarian nationalism. This stuff applied to Alexander the Great was weird enough, but when applied to a mythical figure is simply frightening.
Read and weep. Moreschi ( talk) 11:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
probably a good candidate for wp:lame Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Having a passport no doubt helped him get in and out of Hades. Don't die without your passport, and make sure you're buried with it! â Sizzle FlambĂ© ( â/ â) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Rodgarton ( talk · contribs) is engaging in persistent personal attacks against editors on the talk page of this and related articles, and his own user page (where he calls other editors "retarded"). He's had several warnings about this, and related blocks. Could an admin look into this please? Verbal chat 12:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a debate going on here about what constitutes a fringe viewpoint and what constitutes a significant minority viewpoint. Namely: is it sufficient to be able to name a few notable proponents of an idea (even though they may be notable for other things) for this idea to be considered a "significant minority viewpoint"? Opinions are most welcome.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
the significant minority viewpoint needs to be debated, and its existence needs to be recognized, in peer-reviewed academic literature. It doesn't matter so much who or how many people propose the view, it matters what impact it makes in academia. -- dab (đł) 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There are two issues of interest here, I think. 1, There has been a lot of vandalism here today (anti fluoridation TV show somewhere?), and 2, there is a talk page discussion about whether the page is "balanced". Cheers, Verbal chat 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this entirely qualifies as fringe, but the authors autiobio makes me think so. Relevant articles are:
The first article in the list seems wacky, which combined with the self-promotion angle made me bring it up here. The editor in question has also been removing tags (improvement ones and CSDs) that I and other editors placed. Rather than get into an edit war, wanted to let other eyes take a look. Best, -- Bfigura ( talk) 04:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
At Hecate, one editor thinks that "Hekat" should be given as an alternative name of the goddess in the lead sentence, based on 2 neopagan sources. Another editor thinks these are pretty poor sources on which to base the first sentence of an article about a Greco-Roman goddess. Input welcome at Talk:Hecate#Hekat. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A fringe bio which is having a lot of back and forth. Mostly consisted of a dubious biography and dubious praise. The AfD seems to rely a lot on GHITS and his large "publication" record. Verbal chat 09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
For those interested, my recent post at WP:AN#Wikipedia and nationalism - this is not getting any better might be worth looking at. Moreschi ( talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see the etymology section [ [28]]. I could not find any of the google book links the person mentioned. But I did check etymology [ [29]]. I tried to put the information there, but was reverted with what appears to be a WP:SPA in here: [ [30]]. I did a google books search and they mention the word as either Tungus and many sources relate it to the Sanskrit word. Also prominent Turkologist like Gerald Clauson are not sure if Tungus can be classified as Altaic. [ [31]]. Any help clarifying the etymology of this word is appreciated. Also I rather not edit that article, but the article requires some work. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This was just vandalism. Roll it back, a brainless s/Tungusic word/Turkic word/ replacement, the editor didn't even bother to adapt the spelling ĆĄamĂĄn. It is a paragraph I wrote back in January. It was already somewhat deteriorated before the vandalism.
The article is already aware that the word made it into Turkic. If more detail on the history of the word within Turkic is added that would be fine, but is it too much to hope that the Turkic history of the word can be documented without vandalism to the non-Turkic content? -- dab (đł) 18:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)