This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This came up a few weeks ago. Checking back, it seems the small amount of good RS material in the article has now disappeared and a lot of new stuff added some of which seems distinctly ORish, though at least there now appears to be some sources. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This seems likely to be a problem so long as User:Dananmohammad is participating. No offense to Mr. Mohammad intended; I'm sure he believes that he's helping us by bringing these truths to light. Stenen Bijl ( talk) 05:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Though I note Wikipedia doesn't yet have articles Tony Robbins in the Torah or L. Ron Hubbard in the Vedas, perhaps he'd be willing to help create those and bring them up to par. Stenen Bijl ( talk) 05:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Michael A. Hoffman II ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael A. Hoffman II needs attention again. Sourced material is being replaced by material not backed up by the citations given. Thanks! Location ( talk) 19:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Could someone review the recent changes to Abiogenesis? Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
There are two other editors making dubious changes as well. All three are brand new. And to be clear: I have been reviewing the edits, and I would revert or heavily modify quite a few of them. My thought is to return the page to the last stable version, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 05:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Another perpetual motion device, this one using a transformer. Looking at the patent circuit diagram, it is surely a hoax, as I can hardly imagine that current would flow at all given the polarity of the various diodes in the circuit. In any case there are promotional problems. Mangoe ( talk) 15:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Has some interesting recent issues over how strong/conclusive the scientific consensus is that it's pseudoscience/quackery, and whether Edzard Ernst should be debunked as a debunker. I recommend this article to fringe experts' watchlists. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether [1] is original research and synthesis designed to unduly promote a fringe theory on the talk page. More input from people familiar with the fringe guidelines is welcome, IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep a close watch on these articles:
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Journal of Scientific Exploration
There has been some fringe POV pushing. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Recent tagging and subsequent discussion here regarding the number and quality of sources that refer to Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience. I see adequate reliable sources that support referring to it as a pseudoscience in the article lead (although in my opinion, it doesn't need to be in the very first sentence). Other opinions welcome. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
An editor would like additional opinions regarding the naming of Lee Harvey Oswald as a "suspect" rather than the "perpetrator". Location ( talk) 22:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Due to a paper recently submitted to arXiv [2], our Energy Catalyzer article seems to be sparking back to life once more, and will no doubt soon be producing copious amounts of heat, clouds of steam, and other evidence of the catalytic power of wishful thinking, before returning to quiescence. As always, a few extra eyes on it would be most welcome. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Appears to touch on aspects of chemical and biological warfare etc. but at best such material is only tangential to "psycho-" anything. Also, some of the sourcing looks distinctly iffy. Could do with some expert eyes ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 12:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Lucid dreams are real, but this device seems extremely dubious. It's possible I missed something, but I didn't find anything non-promotional about this. Mangoe ( talk) 13:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a communication on the talkpage [4] reporting a second study identifying the notorious WTC red dust as "consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments." There is a citable paper, though it is independently-published (and therefore not peer-reviewed). The testing lab is well-known in the industry and reputable. The person reporting this appears to be a materials science guy from the Czech Republic. Randi's board and other skeptic sites have extensive discussion of this paper (e.g. this thread). I'm inclined to add it to the relevant articles but would like some other input on this. The paper can be found here but I must warn you that it is technical and detailed both to an extreme degree. Mangoe ( talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Swiss butcher turned "magnetic healer" is the subject of enthusiastic Swiss TV coverage but is of questionable notability (it's up for AfD). Article features a number of non-notable details such as Torrenté's love of cows, and showcases some favorable comments made by the founder of a legit Swiss medical journal during a TV interview, possibly taken out of context. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
BlackLight Power ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Needs eyes on. New (or 'new') contributor, with the usual BS about 'censorship' etc on the talk page, now started editing the article... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I came across this on WP:RS/N: it's a goofy theory of recent construction claiming that medieval and Indian musicians used a a special scale whose frequencies have numerological significance. I can tell you that it's utter bullocks because the tuning fork wasn't even invented until 1711 and decent pitch measurement wasn't possible until the early to mid 1800s. Also, "ut" (better know as "do" in modern scales) comes out to G above middle C, a little difficult for adult monks to chant at. It has three tags at the top so you know it's good. I'm doubtful about deleting this outright because it seems that every New Age book of the last decade mentions it, but again finding critical material has been difficult. Mangoe ( talk) 14:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Fritz Springmeier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orangemike, it really doesn't look good for you to have done the block here. People will get the wrong impression. Mangoe ( talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This article was getting into pretty good shape, but I'm not sure about this series of edits, which replaces most of the article with a new one of a different tone, that seems to imply that while the skeptics have disproven MOST of the lights, approximately 3% of them are still of mysterious and probably paranormal origins. Clearly user:Bigbender9 has spent some effort on this essay, but most of it seems like it's not an improvement. APL ( talk) 10:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The most definitive remarks in the above is that APL doesn't like the changes. Something more precise would be appreciated. I removed statements that are incorrect. I've added statements that are true and needed. I've added a more coherent organization of the material. And I've leveled the emphasis. A specific example of the leveling is to reduce the spectral discussion about Bunnell et al from a paragraph to a sentence or two. After all the effort was a failure. Be precise and I'll respond precisely. By the way, I'm a novice at using this system, so please note that I am bigbender9. talk
Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Mthsr1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Images recently added purporting to be the work of a U.S. Army soldier. Sample: [5] The fringe theory being advanced is that the drawings were created by the "US Army during official Army investigation of this incident". A secondary problem is that a copyright free "US Government" status is being claimed on the image file permissions. The origin of the images is unverified. When image files are tagged with file permission problems, SPA simply uploads new, untagged versions. I should add that I see no problem including these images in the article...provided they can be proven to have come from the U.S. Army and are verifiable as such. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The Andrea Rossi page has been stable for a long time, but now two experienced editors are removing what I think is important info from the lead on the grounds that it's a BLP. I thought we'd already referenced this well and said what needed to be said. Mentioning a company like Petrodragon without mentioning its history seems absurd. Bhny ( talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Nutrition is an area notoriously rife with weird untested unscientific mumbo jumbo. Soylent is a new liquid food, meant to substitute regular food. It's being marketed as suitable for everyone, with no real testing. None of the people involved have any qualifications, or registrations, or experience, as nutritionists or dieticians. Indeed, none of them have any medical qualifications at all. Soylent is successfully creating a lot of publicity buzz, so there is a lot of coverage in newspapers. So I think it's hard to get the article deleted on notability grounds? And I'm not going to register so I can nominate an article for deletion. But there are many liquid food products available, and most of those have extensive testing. There are medical products (Ensure; Nutricia; all the Abbott Nutrition brands; etc. There are domestic and diet products (complan, slimfast, etc etc.) So the untested nature of Soylent, and the tested nature of other products should be in the article. 31.126.158.75 ( talk) 13:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Recently fringe claims have been inserted into March_Against_Monsanto, such as
etc. No mainstream perspective is given. More input welcome here Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#.22Broad_scientific_consensus.22_and_WP:POVFORK, Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Editors_are_trying_to_insert_fringe_claims_into_this_article. IRWolfie- ( talk) 00:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor is censuring mainstream rebuttals at [7]. More input welcome: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#PhysOrg_article.2C_plus_comment_from_Ethan_Siegel.27s_blog. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a brief break from my wikibreak to comment on a new website attack on me at [8] (fortunately my daughter let me know about it). I thought it a good idea to respond at Talk:Kaveh Farrokh. I may email Farrokh's website about these libels. I wish I had the money to sue them. I love the repeated use of Metapedia. Dougweller ( talk) 12:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
After a very friendly exchange of emails with Kaveh Farrokh (who likes my website at [http:www.ramtops.co.uk)] he's deleted the webpage. He seems to be a nice guy. Dougweller ( talk) 17:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor added a statement about ancient Egypt to the article, referenced to a web page. I reverted per WP:RS, and the IP responded by re-adding a shorter statement, this time with no source named. Rather than continue a one-on-one dispute I am bringing the issue here for the attention of others. I will also try to open a discussion on the talk page of the article. Looie496 ( talk) 15:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
First Earth Battalion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"The First Earth Battalion was the name proposed by Lieutenant Colonel Jim Channon, a U.S. soldier who had served in Vietnam, for his idea of a new military to be organized along New Age lines". Is this total moonbattery, or is there something to it? Anyone know anything about it? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Gwennan Gorn is a content fork of Madoc and should be a redirect. I've taken a break from my Wikibreak to comment on the many problems it has on its talk page. It's up for a DYK as well. Dougweller ( talk) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an effort to keep tau the math constant from having a article. They claim that there is not enough "notable". I have yet to see any comment from the fringe theory side on this. What can be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 ( talk • contribs)
|
The author of Other Losses is starting to pick up material again suggesting that people actually agree with the thesis of the book. Mangoe ( talk) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This news story broke in the last 24hrs and a new article is growing at a rapid pace. Since certain aspects of this topic are a conspiracy-theorists' wet dream, fringe experts may want to keep an experienced eye on proceedings to ensure everything is being done properly. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 12:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment on (and improve) a draft FAQ for the Genetically modified food controversies page (possibly to be transcluded to related pages as well). This is a topic area associated with a lot of fringe science; editors familiar with the FAQs on other such pages (e.g. evolution, global warming) are especially welcome. The talk page section for discussion is here. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 09:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This group has come up again WRT sourcing for a claim made in thunderbird. The article makes it sound terribly important, but from what I gather the thirteen women in question have no real call to speak for anyone about anything. It's not at all clear how they personally were selected. I'm increasingly inclined to question whether they should have an article, but at any rate the article needs major deflation. Mangoe ( talk) 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I found eleven ten eleven (Clara Shinobu Iura and Maria Alice Campos Freire don't appear to have articles here):
and also, relatedly:
Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The "remaining members" AFD was extended for lack of consensus if anyone else wishes to comment. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly fringe per se, but related to the topic of creationism/evolution that input from regulars here would be helpful. The article on Theistic evolution seems to contain an awful lot of OR and synth based on primary sources. I've removed the worst of the material, lists of adherents and proponents that were either completely unsourced or synth. There is a discussion going on on the talk page. Would appreciate it if more editors would examine the article and weigh in. There is a valid topic here, but the article seems to have become a coatrack article on a vague concept. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 02:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This is an article about a Discovery Channel - also called "Ice Age Columbus: Who Were the First Americans". I can't find anything discussing it so maybe it should go to AfD. But at the moment the problem that I have is that it states as fact stuff that is either flat out wrong or misleading. We have a decent article on the Solutrean hypothesis so perhaps the best solution is to turn this into a redirect with a paragraph about it in the main article? The main article, for instance, makes it clear that DNA studies show that what I'm guessing is the DNA mentioned in the documentary didn't come via the Atlantic, but the article we have on the documentary says baldly "DNA evidence found a pattern that traced its lineage back to Europe in about a quarter of all Native Americans." It also says "Also, in sites across Europe and North America, stone age man apparently buried caches of oversized, thin spearheads that were impractical for hunting in ritualistic manners" - this has no context and I have no idea what is being referred to or what "impractical for hunting in ritualistic manners" even means. Dougweller ( talk) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the sentence is intended to says that they buried "in ritualistic manners" spearheads that were impractical for hunting. There should be a comma after 'hunting' at minimum, but really the sentence should be rewritten. Paul B ( talk) 20:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see a one sentence mention of the show in the main article, but nothing beyond that. Interesting how many white supremacists groups show up high in the search results, though. Mangoe ( talk) 21:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Can people review this article from this section on? The references are very sparse, and the tone feels a bit promotional, but I'm not sure if I'm just seeing things. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is, uh, interesting. I removed a section that looks to me like pure OR -- the first sentence is, "Ego is the characteristic of the age, at least as far as the West is concerned," and it goes on from there. The removal was reverted by Drg55 ( talk · contribs), with an edit summary saying, "The opition that there is a balance between ego and god is supported by references. 40,000 people found this interesting. Wikipedia ignore all rules." It would be useful to have more input here. Looie496 ( talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Things are reaching a critical mass at this article, with a lot of vitriol, claims of paid editing, and denial of the scientific consensus in place. Some extra eyes are necessary. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I've started work on this, trying to strip out the off-topic stuff and the bad sources. Just started though, will work on it more tomorrow. I still think it belongs in Madoc. Dougweller ( talk) 20:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Power factor we have two editors who have been pushing the fringe claim that there is no such thing as a negative power factor despite there being exactly zero sources for that claim. Any additional eyes on the page would be most appreciated. Those who help will be given special privileges when I become Dalek Supreme... :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
5 IPs so far editing from the same Chinese city. Request at RPP but not responded to and the pov edits are still there. Dougweller ( talk) 14:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
<redacted again>
< copyright violation redacted AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC) >
Thank you! 49.84.13.116 ( talk) 15:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
To the User AndyTheGrump ( talk), the previous editors statements have been restored, everyone has a right to state their views here and it is not allowed according to Wikipedia guidelines gto delete anyone's statements. The copyrighted link we can understand, but everyone has a freedom of speech to voice their opinions on this page. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, not a totalitarian platform. 180.118.162.225 ( talk) 16:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to see a fringe editor trying hard to be blocked, see User:BiasEXPOSED. Dougweller ( talk) 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not "trying to be blocked" liar. All I have to do is post Truth and the gang of pagans running Wikipedia does the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiasEXPOSED ( talk • contribs)
|}
More fringe POV pushing at Aquatic ape hypothesis. Could use more eyes on the article. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 09:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
News has come that Focardi, the physicist connected to the Energy Catalyzer cold fusion device, has died. I notice his biography here has a section titled "Studies on nickel-hydrogen exothermal systems". Never heard of such a thing? This appears to be a code phrase for the supposed working principle of Rossi's E-Cat, which is to say, it's a euphemism for a "cold fusion" theory. I'm not sure what to do with the paragraph in question, but I am concerned that it gives an inaccurate picture of this research as well as give the E-Cat-pushing crowd another place to work, especially now that BLP protection for the article has lapsed. Mangoe ( talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Just came out of protection. Needs to be watched for more IP abuse. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor keeps reverting information that Focardi has died. Obviously this is relevant information since he was the only scientist behind the device. Bhny ( talk) 14:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Forced to agree with OP. Clear that ecat is fringe, but as a highly notable member of an ongoing controversy, his death is very relevant to the future of the controversy, and therefore the article. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Paranormal/spiritualist writer Michael Prescott the owner of a spiritualist blog has been ranting that a source is wrong on wikipedia. You can find his rant here [10] entitled "wiki whacky". The source that he is moaning about is The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero by William Kalush and Larry Sloman. The book itself was published by Atria Books, it is notable. It was a New York Times Bestseller. It has received some positive reviews. Most of the book appears to be sound, but apparently there is some far-fetched speculation towards the back of the book about Houdini's death. Anyway down to the current controversy.
Michael Prescott is a convinced spiritualist who believes everything from ectoplasm to spiritualist table rapping is real, he even posts on his blog defending long debunked fraudulent mediums. There is even a page about Prescott's wacky beliefs here [11]. I am not deliberately personally attacking Prescott just merely stating his fringe beliefs. Prescott has moaned on his blog that Cesare Lombroso and Charles Richet (two spiritualist believers) were not in a sexual relationship with the medium Eusapia Palladino. According to the source by Kalush and Sloman, Palladino had slept with both Lombroso and Richet.
This issue was raised here [ [12]] the user Shii is a long time poster/friend on Michael Prescott's blog. Both Shii and Prescott and now claiming victory on Prescott's blog [13] as the reference to the Sloman book has been removed. Please let me know how this issue can be resolved. Is the Sloman book reliable? A search in google books reveals other references which document that Palladino had sexual relationships with her sitters, this is well known but spiritualists such as Prescott deny it. Doubter12 ( talk) 17:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
An alternative therapy devised by William Horatio Bates, M.D., who in 1920 published The Cure of Imperfect Eyesight by Treatment Without Glasses.
Reading the article here it would seem this is a controversial treatment which has met with skepticism from the "mainstream" but for which in some senses the jury is still out – space is given to claimed successes and support for the therapy from people such as "philosopher Frank J. Leavitt".
However, reading outside Wikipedia it seems Bates' approach is totally discredited and indeed highly dangerous (I have added a ref from the BMJ stating this). See for example this Quackwatch article.
I'd welcome an expert view on whether this article deals with this fringe topic well. More generally, does WP:FRINGE apply to such medical topics, or is there a point at which they are more appropriate for WP:WikiProject_Medicine? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Fringe and perhaps misrepresented source stuff here being added by an editor I've taken to WP:ANI for copyvio. See Talk:Kariong, New South Wales - I think he's not just using unreliable sources but misrepresenting sources. Dougweller ( talk) 10:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hinduwisdom.info is a WP:FRINGE website that selectively quote mines dubious and unreliable sources to push the point that Hindu civilization is superior to Western (or any other) civilization. Many of the claims made on the site are pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical, and xenophobic.
Ancient India was the source of many of the world's religions and technological innovations, but the website serves a single purpose: To demonize the contributions of other civilizations, especially the contributions of Europeans, while glorifying Hinduism. This historical revisionism has been cited on multiple Wikipedia articles, and needs to be immediately removed. Thoughts? -- Rurik the Varangian ( talk) 13:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Philosophy are discussing whether the creation and use of Category:Pseudophilosophy is a good and worthwhile idea. Input from fringe theory noticeboard regulars is welcome. — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
There may need to be some eyes on this user's contributions [14] he has already been blocked before it seems but he keeps inserting fringe material in paranormal articles and deleting reliable sources as "biased" and claiming they were written by "materialists" or "atheists". On the paranormal article he has written a long rant [15] which is mostly trolling claiming Wikipedia editors are atheists and materialists suppressing evidence for the paranormal. I have reverted some of his edits but he will probably start an edit war on some of these articles. Doubter12 ( talk) 00:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Max Gerson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Needs eyes on - attempts to weasel-word the lede to imply that fringe 'therapy' isn't scientifically unsupported and potentially hazardous. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Please keep looking out for mention of "Tartessian" and "Celtic from the West" in articles related to Indo-European and specifically Celtic languages and peoples, to the Bronze Age of Europe, and the (pre-)history of Portugal and Spain. John T. Koch's and Francisco Villar's proposal, in various publications since 2010, that the (obscure and quite ancient) Tartessian language (of southern Portugal and southwestern Spain) was a Celtic language, due to the activities of POV-pushing editors, keeps popping up in at times only marginally related articles, variously presented as unqualified fact (as in Indo-European languages), or more carefully worded, but conspicuously – and conveniently – neglecting to mention the failure of this proposal to gain significant traction in the scholarly community (as in Celts), or with puffery added (as in Atlantic Bronze Age), as well as typically an exaggerated number of footnotes, apparently intended to impress the reader, falling afoul of WP:REFBLOAT and WP:RECENT.
It is important to know that Koch and Villar are by no means outsiders or amateur linguists, but respected specialists in Celtic studies and historical Indo-European linguistics, but the significant methodical issues with their readings cannot be ignored and have not gone unnoticed. Except in Tartessian language, Celtic languages and perhaps Tartessos and Celts, the proposal hardly even merits mention at all. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
There's also Atlantean (documentary series) and perhaps more articles like it which display POV in being overly sympathetic to the fringe view and playing down or failing to mention its problems, or letting misunderstandings go uncorrected.
No mainstream linguist is going to claim that the native population of the British Isles claiming a "Celtic" ethnic identity (itself a recent historical-linguistics-based construct, make no mistake) is derived purely from Iron Age populations of Central Europe – that it goes back exclusively to a single source, which would mean that there were no inhabitants preceding the Celtic/Indo-European influx (which the archaeological facts are incompatible with), or that they were completely eradicated (as some earlier scholars held); the genetic and archaeological data are easy to reconcile with the linguistic facts if we allow for multiple origins: ancient Celts, immigrants from the continent, could well have formed only a relatively thin ruling class over a native population with links to the south – Iberia and perhaps North Africa. But their original languages (which formed a substratum to Celtic) are completely unknown, making the British Isles, unfortunately, a blank spot on the linguistic map of Bronze Age Europe – only fragments of this map can be reconstructed. (See Insular Celtic languages and Goidelic substrate hypothesis for some more detail on the issue, and Pre-Celtic for investigations beyond linguistics.) -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
There is a
fringe theory that Kosovo is still part of Serbia. (In reality, it
declared independence a few years ago). In prose, it's generally a good idea to cover both sides in context, but categorisation doesn't really permit such nuances, and unfortunately people still seem keen to use categorisation to
revoke the independence. What's the best way to deal with this?
bobrayner (
talk) 03:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Calling it a hoax in the title of the article seems a step too far without much better sourcing. To title it a hoax currently violates WP:COMMONNAME. My impression is that we have there is wide consensus to use words like "hoax" in a title sparingly and only when it's well-documented that a outright hoax was perpetuated. Note the rarity in List of religious hoaxes and List of hoaxes.
Because of the multiple types of hoaxes, many with legal aspects, there are NPOV and BLP issues with using the label at all, but I believe the use of "hoax" within the article is appropriate given the sources. However, we do not have sources that go into the hoax accusations in any depth, nor do we have sources demonstrating the label is commonly used. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This article may also need sorting out. The references are amazon and his own website. 82.1.154.153 ( talk) 01:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is complete original research. I spent over an hour looking for sources, all I could find was one review and a mention of it in a few other UFO books which are unreliable. I believe a redirect may be the solution and perhaps mention the book on the article on John Keel if any reliable sources can found but an entire article to see is completely over the top as no references can be found to back up what is written in the article. 82.1.154.153 ( talk) 01:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is in a seriously bad state (mostly original research), and the references that are cited are to fringe UFO websites. Most of the article is similar to what is on the Interdimensional hypothesis. 82.1.154.153 ( talk) 01:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see the edit history of this article, it was a redirect since 2007 but was restored recently. This seems dodgy fringe material. 82.1.154.153 ( talk) 01:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Owner of the "Museum of the Weird" who recently opened a new exhibit of the "Minnesota Iceman" is looking to remove mention of it being a hoax, despite his obvious WP:COI. Bears watching. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
A bunch of sockpuppet accounts has been deleting things from the Mary Baker Eddy article, he admitted in his edit history to being a "Christian scientist" and his agenda appears to be deleting any criticism from the article and adding in fringe sources. He's done the same on the Christian Science article it seems as well in the past. 82.1.154.153 ( talk) 05:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add more views to that section? Smacks of WP:FRINGE. It's currently mostly based on Levin's publications. A search in Google Books finds plenty of material... Someone not using his real name ( talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Article about a perpetual motion machine that was patented in the 1970's. Lots of weasel-words about "some people think this is impossible", needs more neutral language on perpetual motion. Additionally, not much notability is established in the article; the only source is "FreeEnergyNews.com"; a quick Google didn't turn up anything that looks too reliable. Mildly Mad T C 17:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Fritz Springmeier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Cathy O'Brien ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, User:Dougweller gave me good advice and I edited what he recommended. He did not make any changes after that. Shanethegadberry ( talk)
A new editor and an IP have been attempting to make some changes that I would not consider WP:NPOV on Talk:Burzynski Clinic. I'm short on time (which is really just my excuse for really not wanting to deal with these types of conversations anymore :D) but some gentle explaining of neutrality might be helpful before this editor gets him/herself in trouble. Noformation Talk 21:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Has non-std ideas about what heat is. Not sure whether he's a crank or what, but may need to be monitored if he doesn't cease (or is made to desist). Mangoe ( talk) 23:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This is borderline fringe. An nearly SPA editor (at least in his recent postings) is insisting at human genome that to refer to it as "the human genome", with the the, gives the article a "bias in favor of 'big science'" and so has replaced "The human genome" at the start with all kinds of combinations to avoid using that specific phrase. He also keeps restoring text (currently a whole section, the first after the lede) to indicate that (as opposed to just 'human genome') the specific phrase 'the human genome' has a special meaning (at one point putting in the article that it was used by scientists to camouflage their differing interests). While the section is littered with references, only one actually comments on the use of the phrase itself and it doesn't say what he portrays. More eyes would be helpful. Agricolae ( talk) 04:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Some discussion coming to boil over whether Chopra's views on quantum science are really fringe, and whether/how skeptic commentary on him should be present. Wise editors' opinions could benefit the discussion I am sure. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
A new article on a case where an Italian judge apparently awarded damages to a family claiming the MMR vaccine causes autism. Some content on the same topic was added at MMR vaccine controversy which I reverted. No scientific literature is cited. I'm leaning towards a PROD or AfD but I'd like to ask for opinions here first. :-) Arc de Ciel ( talk) 12:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Possible topic ban in this fringe-medical-related topic. Mangoe ( talk) 15:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This seems like rather an exceptional claim (that circumstantial information is transmitted to subsequent generations genetically), also evident in the links from here. The Överkalix study seems to have had some press coverage and is also treated as "reviving" the evolutionary debate in this piece. Any geneticists in the house?
An editor has raised concerns with FT/N on UT:Jimbo, thread can be found at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#fringe_theories_notice_board_vs_forum_shop_.26_canvasing. Noformation Talk 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Could use some eyes on Acupuncture. Some editors are trying to elevate some unsupported or poorly supported explanations to the level of "theories". A lot of the material in the section on "Proposed mechanisms of action" is not supported by sources complying with WP:MEDRS, and the most widespread explanation, the placebo effect, is played down, probably violating WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
A new user Seleukos256 has been pushing some fringe views and deleting scientific sources on the precognition article. I did some further research. Here is one of his comments (it is obviously the same guy):
"I visited the Wikipedia page on precognition this morning and it was awful. It said things like: no replicable experiments, violates scientific principles (I have a Ph.D. in physics and say this is a B.S. excuse and no I don't mean the degree), no scientists believe in it... yadda, yadda. I fixed and replaced some of the most painfully false statements today. But I think we need to be more proactive in promoting and defending scientific parapsychological results on Wikipedia. It is the first place many people go for reference.
If you see these kinds of statements on Wikipedia pages, please DELETE! The "skeptics" have nothing to back them up."
From a spiritualist blog [16]. Eyes may need to be put on some of these parapsychology articles, I suspect that other stuff may start being deleted and all kinds of crackpot claims are going to be inserted. I don't have time for this because I am busy working on some other articles. But just giving a heads up, if anyone wants to watch that article. Thanks. Fodor Fan ( talk) 19:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Ruggero Santilli#Page seems to be giving credibility... The page is giving credibility to the man and to several of his theories, that are clearly fringe theories and fringe science, without giving due warning, or showing credible sources of refutation, thus giving it undue weight. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 13:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I've put the article March Against Monsanto up for deletion. It is of interest to this board because the reason for deletion is that the article inherently fails WP:NPOV/ WP:FRINGE because it appears that the scientific consensus can not be stated without WP:OR. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Taking this case of the claim that GM food has adverse affects health (which runs counter to science) it seems 3 options are in play:
I am not sure the guidance in WP:FRINGE gives clear enough direction in this kind of case. It says "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Is the MaM article "covering" the GM health view "in detail"? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
(Add) And it seems to me the fringe guidance is a lot softer here than the actual
policy itself, which states "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. ... This also applies to other fringe subjects ..." (my bolding).
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI
A new editor appears to be re-inserting POV pushing content without discussion to make it appear that the Atacama skeleton is possible alien. More eyes are welcome, IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place. They told me at the Administration noticeboard to try here. Can Mindfulness (psychology) really treat these diseases? I'm not a scientist so I can't decipher the medical studies. Maybe someone can look at them if they have time. Alexbrn reviewed the MBSR article but I think this one needs a review also. Research suggests that mindfulness practices are useful in the treatment of pain,[4] stress,[4] anxiety,[4] depressive relapse,[4] disordered eating,[4] and addiction.[24][25] Mindfulness has been investigated for its potential benefit for individuals who do not experience these disorders, as well, with positive results. Mindfulness practice improves the immune system[26] and alters activation symmetries in the prefrontal cortex, a change previously associated with an increase in positive effect and a faster recovery from a negative experience.-- LarEvee ( talk) 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth naming the article, but on a long-standing problem article I added MiszaBot archiving to the talk page after 7 days. This seems to have vastly reduced the problems, since threads didn't stay active to be constantly resurrected. May be worth trying elsewhere. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about the definition of astrology at talk:astrology. Part of the problem is that our treatment of the concept of divination is split between two articles, Divination, which deals with religious rituals, and Fortune-telling which deals with non-religious forms of divination like astrology. I'm reluctant to use the term "fortune-telling" in the definition in the Astrology article, and would much prefer to use the term "divination". However, that would mean wikilinking the word "divination" with the article on fortune-telling. Further input would be appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 06:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Um, I'm surprised by your evident belief that I haven't supplied full bibliographic information for both sources I mentioned. Could you please tell me what information you're looking for that I haven't already included? If you want the source of my information on Brockback's Ph.D dissertation (I understand that British use the word "thesis" instead), you can check Patrick Curry's website
here.
By the way, the amazon link you supplied shows that Whitfield's Astrology: A History is indeed the same book that was published by the British Library. The Abrams version has a different-colored cover, but the design is the same. If you scroll down to the bottom of your link, you will see a reference to the "British Museum" edition of the book, and of course the British Library used to be part of the British Museum. Evidently Abrams published the book in the United States simultaneously with the British Library in England. My copy (published by the British Library) indicates that the text is copyrighted (2001) by Peter Whitfield, and the illustrations are copyrighted by the British Library (with its extensive collection of old manuscripts which are the basis of the illustrations).--
Other Choices (
talk) 00:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal to split List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. The talkpage section is Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Splitting article: science .26 non-science topics. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This posting is simply a notification about a discussion regarding a possible article split. It is not a thread to discuss what is or is not pseudoscience. Nor is the list talk page discussion. Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Cross post about an article filled with pseudoscientific medical claims: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There has been some to-and-fro recently on a couple of article for substances which are associated with fringe claims of cancer treatment: Essiac and Soursop (and its related article Annona muricata). Wise eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 18:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Add Annonaceae to the list of articles to which Prokaryotes has added material not supported by WP:MEDRS. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Chandra Wickramasinghe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article seems to be suffering from fringe bloat and quite a bit of coatracking. Wickramasinghe is a giant in the field of ISM studies and, as one of the last students of the late, great Fred Hoyle, is an important connection to the previous generation of astrophysicists. However, the panspermia ideas that he has been promoting over the last 30 years or so have gotten stranger and stranger to the point that he has ended up working with predatory open access journals like the Journal of Cosmology to promote his views.
A culling, at the very least, is probably what would be best here. I encourage editors to read through the ongoing disputes and decide how best to handle this delicate matter.
jps ( talk) 18:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor is arguing that their addition of a non-notable UFO hoax is notable based on two original research docs posted at scribd.com. They also cite an article at nicap.org and fringe source www.theufochronicles.com sources…which mention nothing of any "hoax", but do promote fringe views regarding alien UFOs deactivating nuclear missiles at a military base. I've reverted once, and they've requested that the matter be taken to an appropriate noticeboard, so here it is. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Google Books However there is a dispute as to whether this is fringe?
See most up to date sources:
Issue
Does the aforementioned scholarship on the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories?
Importance
Although most scholars no longer believe that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, many do believe the Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead or source of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew (hence the name). (See composite authorship)
- Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
After a somewhat confused start due to my typing skills, we must look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories and see if they apply here. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. For something to be a fringe theory, it must be A) FRINGE and B) a THEORY
Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not fringe as its existence is supported, not only by the above contested sources but also by older sources from Lessing to Ehrman.
Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not a theory but a "statement of fact". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)
This "statement of fact" may be contested. Scholars can debate whether or nor the "Gospel of Matthew" was a translation of the "Hebrew Gospel". They may argue that the Hebrew Gospel is the Fountainhead but they cannot say Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is theoretical.
Therefore WP Fringe Theory cannot apply. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has become about SCOPE and WEIGHT, which can only be decided by consensus. Therefore, it should be ended here and continued on the article talk page or in DRN. Ignocrates ( talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
In fairness to Ret.Prof, he brought this question to FTN because of a lot of loose talk on the article talk page about the fringiness of the topic of a Hebrew Gospel as a justification for the deletion of reliably-sourced content. I think we are in general agreement that this dispute is not, and never was, about FRINGE. The beginning of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith signals the end of rational discussion, so I propose this emotive dialogue stay on the article talk page and we finish up here. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Tgeorgescu - I just finished reading your comments, and I think I found the problem. You were reading from an older version of Ehrman. Please look at the following quotes, but sure to follow the links to see their context! Feel free to point out any errors, add any important material you feel was left out and of course add more up to date sources. Thanks for taking the time to join our discussion.
Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 After quoting the Papias tradition which states "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue"
It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now I hope this clears up the confusion. Thanks for being patient with an old guy who was clearly overwhelmed! Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Ignocrates Thanks for restoring sanity when needed! -
Ret.Prof (
talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor has expressed concern on the talk page that Quantum mind does not belong in the pseudoscience category and that the article is somehow biased. I disagree, but I wonder what others think. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 23:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
A new editor, Kimen027 ( talk · contribs) continues to add material to this article sources to Henriette Mertz and David Hatcher Childress despite my post to her talk page. I've reverted her twice but that's had no effect. I'll notify her about this discussion. Dougweller ( talk) 20:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Could use more eyes on Stephen C. Meyer. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 18:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
On August 8, I ran into a notice that Poaching was on the list of articles for improvement. At first glance, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Poaching&oldid=567139087 I saw that the lead was a very unusual definition that did not represent the common meaning. The acts of poaching section directly listed items as poaching that are legal in many places, confirmed by links in the article. I broke that list into two sublists that were more consistent with current law and more factually correct. Both of these edits were removed with no real comment. I continued to try to accommodate the non standard definition with little constructive feedback from the other editor. I have had several edits reverted or removed, also with little or no communication. I perceive the attitude of the other editor as superior and dismissive. At this point I feel that the three reversion rule has been violated. In my opinion, the conflict is primarily over language and references that impact the NPOV in this article.
The lead still contains wording consistent with the overly broad definition that I do not believe belongs in the lead as it represents a very radical redefinition of poaching that belongs, as far as I can see, in a historical discussion of the motivations and effects of such a broad, nonstandard, and I contend, unworkable definition. I am characterizing the definition as fringe and feel way to much emphasis was and still is being given to this definition.
It is clear from quick look at the Talk:Poaching page that I do not have the tolerance or perspective to deal with this sort of conflict. I would very much like to be able to continue to contribute to Poaching It is severely lacking in historical and contextual information that I would love to help develop and reference. I have neither the time nor inclination to play this game and I am asking for administrative intervention. Economic Refugee ( talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor, Edgth has now twice removed a cited passage about pansexuality, asserting that it is "fringe". I do not believe this to be the case; the cited passage is from a reference text. If there is a dispute about weight, that is something that can be discussed, but that is a different matter. Further, this editor cites the number of page watchers and the length of time since the edit was made as evidence that it is uncontroversial, and I believe this to be inappropriate.
As "fringe" has a fairly specific meaning on WP, and the talk page there is fairly inactive, I am coming here for suggestions. The pattern of other edits this editor has made seemed controversial and edit-war-like enough for me to post at WP:AN3. these were also on the topic of human sexuality. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 08:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
for the record, this is the edit in question. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 08:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It's probably not quite right to describe this as a FRINGE issue, but the edit which simplified the with-kitchen-sink text is welcome IMHO. The linked sexual orientation has a navbox that shows only "Asexual ∙ Bisexual ∙ Heterosexual ∙ Homosexual" as sexual orientations, and that seems good enough for the lead of Human sexuality which has no other mention of "pansexual". Johnuniq ( talk) 09:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Human sexuality may also involve a person's sexual attraction to another person – which may be determined by their sexual orientation – whether it is to the opposite sex ( heterosexuality), to the same sex ( homosexuality), having both these tendencies ( bisexuality), to all gender identities ( pansexuality or bisexuality), or not being attracted to anyone in a sexual manner ( asexuality).
Is this a fringe theory or reliably sourced fact? Independent, high quality scholarship on this issue have concluded that the United States political movement known as the Tea Party consists of both grassroots and astroturf components. Several Wikipedia editors, however, have called this conclusion a "fringe theory"
[20]
[21]
[22], stating that the movement "
is 100% grass-roots" and
It's a grass-roots political movement. Period. These Wikipedia editors further claim that any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists.
Sample of reliable sources describing the movement as both grassroots and astroturf
|
---|
|
The contesting Wikipedia editors have not, to date, produced any reliably sourced refutation of the scholarly consensus that the movement is made up of both grassroots and astroturf elements. They have, however, cited several sources (mostly news media reports) that only mention the "grassroots" components without mentioning the "astroturf" components, as proof that the movement must therefore be 100% grassroots. We'd like some uninvolved input on this matter. Are the above sources promoting a fringe theory? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic ( talk) 16:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be forumshopping at its most intriguing. Not only is it not related to the stated topic of this noticeboard, is not phrased in a neutral manner etc. it also manages to take absurdist potshots at other editors without notifying them of this discussion, yet another venue for what the OP has posted in far too many places already. [23], the TPm moderated discussion page (multiple posts), [24] self-deletion of his own RfC/U, BLP/N, AN and AN/I posts inter alia all pretty much insisting that he only wants the WP:TRUTH <g> Collect ( talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Collect says: "It [this thread] also manages to take absurdist potshots at other editorswithout notifying them of this discussion."
Xenophrenic responds: "I did indeed announce this posting to the editors."
Well, I can certainly attest to having no knowledge of this and was clearly the recipient of an inaccurate portrayal by Xenophrenic. To his defense, though, I would probably also avoid inviting fellow wikipedians to a thread I've used to make up bullshit positions for them and which cannot be verified because I'm talking out of my ass.
But I digress. †TE† Talk 01:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic: "I didn't attribute any of those quotes explicitely [ sic] to you."
Is this a fringe theory or reliably sourced fact? Independent, high quality scholarship on this issue have concluded that the United States political movement known as the Tea Party consists of both grassroots and astroturf components. Several Wikipedia editors, however, have called this conclusion a "fringe theory" [25] [26] [27], stating that the movement " is 100% grass-roots" and It's a grass-roots political movement. Period. These Wikipedia editors further claim that any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists. The contesting Wikipedia editors have not, to date, produced any reliably sourced refutation of the scholarly consensus that the movement is made up of both grassroots and astroturf elements. They have, however, cited several sources (mostly news media reports) that only mention the "grassroots" components without mentioning the "astroturf" components, as proof that the movement must therefore be 100% grassroots.
Oh, and if Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs) would please inform ThinkEnemies ( talk · contribs) after the removal of these patently false positions are complete it would be really helpful. Thanks. †TE† Talk 19:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This came up a few weeks ago. Checking back, it seems the small amount of good RS material in the article has now disappeared and a lot of new stuff added some of which seems distinctly ORish, though at least there now appears to be some sources. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This seems likely to be a problem so long as User:Dananmohammad is participating. No offense to Mr. Mohammad intended; I'm sure he believes that he's helping us by bringing these truths to light. Stenen Bijl ( talk) 05:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Though I note Wikipedia doesn't yet have articles Tony Robbins in the Torah or L. Ron Hubbard in the Vedas, perhaps he'd be willing to help create those and bring them up to par. Stenen Bijl ( talk) 05:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Michael A. Hoffman II ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael A. Hoffman II needs attention again. Sourced material is being replaced by material not backed up by the citations given. Thanks! Location ( talk) 19:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Could someone review the recent changes to Abiogenesis? Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
There are two other editors making dubious changes as well. All three are brand new. And to be clear: I have been reviewing the edits, and I would revert or heavily modify quite a few of them. My thought is to return the page to the last stable version, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 05:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Another perpetual motion device, this one using a transformer. Looking at the patent circuit diagram, it is surely a hoax, as I can hardly imagine that current would flow at all given the polarity of the various diodes in the circuit. In any case there are promotional problems. Mangoe ( talk) 15:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Has some interesting recent issues over how strong/conclusive the scientific consensus is that it's pseudoscience/quackery, and whether Edzard Ernst should be debunked as a debunker. I recommend this article to fringe experts' watchlists. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether [1] is original research and synthesis designed to unduly promote a fringe theory on the talk page. More input from people familiar with the fringe guidelines is welcome, IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep a close watch on these articles:
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Journal of Scientific Exploration
There has been some fringe POV pushing. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Recent tagging and subsequent discussion here regarding the number and quality of sources that refer to Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience. I see adequate reliable sources that support referring to it as a pseudoscience in the article lead (although in my opinion, it doesn't need to be in the very first sentence). Other opinions welcome. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
An editor would like additional opinions regarding the naming of Lee Harvey Oswald as a "suspect" rather than the "perpetrator". Location ( talk) 22:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Due to a paper recently submitted to arXiv [2], our Energy Catalyzer article seems to be sparking back to life once more, and will no doubt soon be producing copious amounts of heat, clouds of steam, and other evidence of the catalytic power of wishful thinking, before returning to quiescence. As always, a few extra eyes on it would be most welcome. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Appears to touch on aspects of chemical and biological warfare etc. but at best such material is only tangential to "psycho-" anything. Also, some of the sourcing looks distinctly iffy. Could do with some expert eyes ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 12:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Lucid dreams are real, but this device seems extremely dubious. It's possible I missed something, but I didn't find anything non-promotional about this. Mangoe ( talk) 13:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a communication on the talkpage [4] reporting a second study identifying the notorious WTC red dust as "consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments." There is a citable paper, though it is independently-published (and therefore not peer-reviewed). The testing lab is well-known in the industry and reputable. The person reporting this appears to be a materials science guy from the Czech Republic. Randi's board and other skeptic sites have extensive discussion of this paper (e.g. this thread). I'm inclined to add it to the relevant articles but would like some other input on this. The paper can be found here but I must warn you that it is technical and detailed both to an extreme degree. Mangoe ( talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Swiss butcher turned "magnetic healer" is the subject of enthusiastic Swiss TV coverage but is of questionable notability (it's up for AfD). Article features a number of non-notable details such as Torrenté's love of cows, and showcases some favorable comments made by the founder of a legit Swiss medical journal during a TV interview, possibly taken out of context. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
BlackLight Power ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Needs eyes on. New (or 'new') contributor, with the usual BS about 'censorship' etc on the talk page, now started editing the article... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I came across this on WP:RS/N: it's a goofy theory of recent construction claiming that medieval and Indian musicians used a a special scale whose frequencies have numerological significance. I can tell you that it's utter bullocks because the tuning fork wasn't even invented until 1711 and decent pitch measurement wasn't possible until the early to mid 1800s. Also, "ut" (better know as "do" in modern scales) comes out to G above middle C, a little difficult for adult monks to chant at. It has three tags at the top so you know it's good. I'm doubtful about deleting this outright because it seems that every New Age book of the last decade mentions it, but again finding critical material has been difficult. Mangoe ( talk) 14:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Fritz Springmeier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orangemike, it really doesn't look good for you to have done the block here. People will get the wrong impression. Mangoe ( talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This article was getting into pretty good shape, but I'm not sure about this series of edits, which replaces most of the article with a new one of a different tone, that seems to imply that while the skeptics have disproven MOST of the lights, approximately 3% of them are still of mysterious and probably paranormal origins. Clearly user:Bigbender9 has spent some effort on this essay, but most of it seems like it's not an improvement. APL ( talk) 10:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The most definitive remarks in the above is that APL doesn't like the changes. Something more precise would be appreciated. I removed statements that are incorrect. I've added statements that are true and needed. I've added a more coherent organization of the material. And I've leveled the emphasis. A specific example of the leveling is to reduce the spectral discussion about Bunnell et al from a paragraph to a sentence or two. After all the effort was a failure. Be precise and I'll respond precisely. By the way, I'm a novice at using this system, so please note that I am bigbender9. talk
Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Mthsr1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Images recently added purporting to be the work of a U.S. Army soldier. Sample: [5] The fringe theory being advanced is that the drawings were created by the "US Army during official Army investigation of this incident". A secondary problem is that a copyright free "US Government" status is being claimed on the image file permissions. The origin of the images is unverified. When image files are tagged with file permission problems, SPA simply uploads new, untagged versions. I should add that I see no problem including these images in the article...provided they can be proven to have come from the U.S. Army and are verifiable as such. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The Andrea Rossi page has been stable for a long time, but now two experienced editors are removing what I think is important info from the lead on the grounds that it's a BLP. I thought we'd already referenced this well and said what needed to be said. Mentioning a company like Petrodragon without mentioning its history seems absurd. Bhny ( talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Nutrition is an area notoriously rife with weird untested unscientific mumbo jumbo. Soylent is a new liquid food, meant to substitute regular food. It's being marketed as suitable for everyone, with no real testing. None of the people involved have any qualifications, or registrations, or experience, as nutritionists or dieticians. Indeed, none of them have any medical qualifications at all. Soylent is successfully creating a lot of publicity buzz, so there is a lot of coverage in newspapers. So I think it's hard to get the article deleted on notability grounds? And I'm not going to register so I can nominate an article for deletion. But there are many liquid food products available, and most of those have extensive testing. There are medical products (Ensure; Nutricia; all the Abbott Nutrition brands; etc. There are domestic and diet products (complan, slimfast, etc etc.) So the untested nature of Soylent, and the tested nature of other products should be in the article. 31.126.158.75 ( talk) 13:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Recently fringe claims have been inserted into March_Against_Monsanto, such as
etc. No mainstream perspective is given. More input welcome here Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#.22Broad_scientific_consensus.22_and_WP:POVFORK, Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Editors_are_trying_to_insert_fringe_claims_into_this_article. IRWolfie- ( talk) 00:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor is censuring mainstream rebuttals at [7]. More input welcome: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#PhysOrg_article.2C_plus_comment_from_Ethan_Siegel.27s_blog. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a brief break from my wikibreak to comment on a new website attack on me at [8] (fortunately my daughter let me know about it). I thought it a good idea to respond at Talk:Kaveh Farrokh. I may email Farrokh's website about these libels. I wish I had the money to sue them. I love the repeated use of Metapedia. Dougweller ( talk) 12:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
After a very friendly exchange of emails with Kaveh Farrokh (who likes my website at [http:www.ramtops.co.uk)] he's deleted the webpage. He seems to be a nice guy. Dougweller ( talk) 17:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor added a statement about ancient Egypt to the article, referenced to a web page. I reverted per WP:RS, and the IP responded by re-adding a shorter statement, this time with no source named. Rather than continue a one-on-one dispute I am bringing the issue here for the attention of others. I will also try to open a discussion on the talk page of the article. Looie496 ( talk) 15:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
First Earth Battalion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"The First Earth Battalion was the name proposed by Lieutenant Colonel Jim Channon, a U.S. soldier who had served in Vietnam, for his idea of a new military to be organized along New Age lines". Is this total moonbattery, or is there something to it? Anyone know anything about it? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Gwennan Gorn is a content fork of Madoc and should be a redirect. I've taken a break from my Wikibreak to comment on the many problems it has on its talk page. It's up for a DYK as well. Dougweller ( talk) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an effort to keep tau the math constant from having a article. They claim that there is not enough "notable". I have yet to see any comment from the fringe theory side on this. What can be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 ( talk • contribs)
|
The author of Other Losses is starting to pick up material again suggesting that people actually agree with the thesis of the book. Mangoe ( talk) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This news story broke in the last 24hrs and a new article is growing at a rapid pace. Since certain aspects of this topic are a conspiracy-theorists' wet dream, fringe experts may want to keep an experienced eye on proceedings to ensure everything is being done properly. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 12:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment on (and improve) a draft FAQ for the Genetically modified food controversies page (possibly to be transcluded to related pages as well). This is a topic area associated with a lot of fringe science; editors familiar with the FAQs on other such pages (e.g. evolution, global warming) are especially welcome. The talk page section for discussion is here. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 09:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This group has come up again WRT sourcing for a claim made in thunderbird. The article makes it sound terribly important, but from what I gather the thirteen women in question have no real call to speak for anyone about anything. It's not at all clear how they personally were selected. I'm increasingly inclined to question whether they should have an article, but at any rate the article needs major deflation. Mangoe ( talk) 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I found eleven ten eleven (Clara Shinobu Iura and Maria Alice Campos Freire don't appear to have articles here):
and also, relatedly:
Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The "remaining members" AFD was extended for lack of consensus if anyone else wishes to comment. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly fringe per se, but related to the topic of creationism/evolution that input from regulars here would be helpful. The article on Theistic evolution seems to contain an awful lot of OR and synth based on primary sources. I've removed the worst of the material, lists of adherents and proponents that were either completely unsourced or synth. There is a discussion going on on the talk page. Would appreciate it if more editors would examine the article and weigh in. There is a valid topic here, but the article seems to have become a coatrack article on a vague concept. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 02:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This is an article about a Discovery Channel - also called "Ice Age Columbus: Who Were the First Americans". I can't find anything discussing it so maybe it should go to AfD. But at the moment the problem that I have is that it states as fact stuff that is either flat out wrong or misleading. We have a decent article on the Solutrean hypothesis so perhaps the best solution is to turn this into a redirect with a paragraph about it in the main article? The main article, for instance, makes it clear that DNA studies show that what I'm guessing is the DNA mentioned in the documentary didn't come via the Atlantic, but the article we have on the documentary says baldly "DNA evidence found a pattern that traced its lineage back to Europe in about a quarter of all Native Americans." It also says "Also, in sites across Europe and North America, stone age man apparently buried caches of oversized, thin spearheads that were impractical for hunting in ritualistic manners" - this has no context and I have no idea what is being referred to or what "impractical for hunting in ritualistic manners" even means. Dougweller ( talk) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the sentence is intended to says that they buried "in ritualistic manners" spearheads that were impractical for hunting. There should be a comma after 'hunting' at minimum, but really the sentence should be rewritten. Paul B ( talk) 20:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see a one sentence mention of the show in the main article, but nothing beyond that. Interesting how many white supremacists groups show up high in the search results, though. Mangoe ( talk) 21:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Can people review this article from this section on? The references are very sparse, and the tone feels a bit promotional, but I'm not sure if I'm just seeing things. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is, uh, interesting. I removed a section that looks to me like pure OR -- the first sentence is, "Ego is the characteristic of the age, at least as far as the West is concerned," and it goes on from there. The removal was reverted by Drg55 ( talk · contribs), with an edit summary saying, "The opition that there is a balance between ego and god is supported by references. 40,000 people found this interesting. Wikipedia ignore all rules." It would be useful to have more input here. Looie496 ( talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Things are reaching a critical mass at this article, with a lot of vitriol, claims of paid editing, and denial of the scientific consensus in place. Some extra eyes are necessary. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I've started work on this, trying to strip out the off-topic stuff and the bad sources. Just started though, will work on it more tomorrow. I still think it belongs in Madoc. Dougweller ( talk) 20:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Power factor we have two editors who have been pushing the fringe claim that there is no such thing as a negative power factor despite there being exactly zero sources for that claim. Any additional eyes on the page would be most appreciated. Those who help will be given special privileges when I become Dalek Supreme... :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
5 IPs so far editing from the same Chinese city. Request at RPP but not responded to and the pov edits are still there. Dougweller ( talk) 14:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
<redacted again>
< copyright violation redacted AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC) >
Thank you! 49.84.13.116 ( talk) 15:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
To the User AndyTheGrump ( talk), the previous editors statements have been restored, everyone has a right to state their views here and it is not allowed according to Wikipedia guidelines gto delete anyone's statements. The copyrighted link we can understand, but everyone has a freedom of speech to voice their opinions on this page. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, not a totalitarian platform. 180.118.162.225 ( talk) 16:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to see a fringe editor trying hard to be blocked, see User:BiasEXPOSED. Dougweller ( talk) 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not "trying to be blocked" liar. All I have to do is post Truth and the gang of pagans running Wikipedia does the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiasEXPOSED ( talk • contribs)
|}
More fringe POV pushing at Aquatic ape hypothesis. Could use more eyes on the article. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 09:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
News has come that Focardi, the physicist connected to the Energy Catalyzer cold fusion device, has died. I notice his biography here has a section titled "Studies on nickel-hydrogen exothermal systems". Never heard of such a thing? This appears to be a code phrase for the supposed working principle of Rossi's E-Cat, which is to say, it's a euphemism for a "cold fusion" theory. I'm not sure what to do with the paragraph in question, but I am concerned that it gives an inaccurate picture of this research as well as give the E-Cat-pushing crowd another place to work, especially now that BLP protection for the article has lapsed. Mangoe ( talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Just came out of protection. Needs to be watched for more IP abuse. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor keeps reverting information that Focardi has died. Obviously this is relevant information since he was the only scientist behind the device. Bhny ( talk) 14:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Forced to agree with OP. Clear that ecat is fringe, but as a highly notable member of an ongoing controversy, his death is very relevant to the future of the controversy, and therefore the article. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Paranormal/spiritualist writer Michael Prescott the owner of a spiritualist blog has been ranting that a source is wrong on wikipedia. You can find his rant here [10] entitled "wiki whacky". The source that he is moaning about is The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero by William Kalush and Larry Sloman. The book itself was published by Atria Books, it is notable. It was a New York Times Bestseller. It has received some positive reviews. Most of the book appears to be sound, but apparently there is some far-fetched speculation towards the back of the book about Houdini's death. Anyway down to the current controversy.
Michael Prescott is a convinced spiritualist who believes everything from ectoplasm to spiritualist table rapping is real, he even posts on his blog defending long debunked fraudulent mediums. There is even a page about Prescott's wacky beliefs here [11]. I am not deliberately personally attacking Prescott just merely stating his fringe beliefs. Prescott has moaned on his blog that Cesare Lombroso and Charles Richet (two spiritualist believers) were not in a sexual relationship with the medium Eusapia Palladino. According to the source by Kalush and Sloman, Palladino had slept with both Lombroso and Richet.
This issue was raised here [ [12]] the user Shii is a long time poster/friend on Michael Prescott's blog. Both Shii and Prescott and now claiming victory on Prescott's blog [13] as the reference to the Sloman book has been removed. Please let me know how this issue can be resolved. Is the Sloman book reliable? A search in google books reveals other references which document that Palladino had sexual relationships with her sitters, this is well known but spiritualists such as Prescott deny it. Doubter12 ( talk) 17:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
An alternative therapy devised by William Horatio Bates, M.D., who in 1920 published The Cure of Imperfect Eyesight by Treatment Without Glasses.
Reading the article here it would seem this is a controversial treatment which has met with skepticism from the "mainstream" but for which in some senses the jury is still out – space is given to claimed successes and support for the therapy from people such as "philosopher Frank J. Leavitt".
However, reading outside Wikipedia it seems Bates' approach is totally discredited and indeed highly dangerous (I have added a ref from the BMJ stating this). See for example this Quackwatch article.
I'd welcome an expert view on whether this article deals with this fringe topic well. More generally, does WP:FRINGE apply to such medical topics, or is there a point at which they are more appropriate for WP:WikiProject_Medicine? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Fringe and perhaps misrepresented source stuff here being added by an editor I've taken to WP:ANI for copyvio. See Talk:Kariong, New South Wales - I think he's not just using unreliable sources but misrepresenting sources. Dougweller ( talk) 10:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hinduwisdom.info is a WP:FRINGE website that selectively quote mines dubious and unreliable sources to push the point that Hindu civilization is superior to Western (or any other) civilization. Many of the claims made on the site are pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical, and xenophobic.
Ancient India was the source of many of the world's religions and technological innovations, but the website serves a single purpose: To demonize the contributions of other civilizations, especially the contributions of Europeans, while glorifying Hinduism. This historical revisionism has been cited on multiple Wikipedia articles, and needs to be immediately removed. Thoughts? -- Rurik the Varangian ( talk) 13:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Philosophy are discussing whether the creation and use of Category:Pseudophilosophy is a good and worthwhile idea. Input from fringe theory noticeboard regulars is welcome. — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
There may need to be some eyes on this user's contributions [14] he has already been blocked before it seems but he keeps inserting fringe material in paranormal articles and deleting reliable sources as "biased" and claiming they were written by "materialists" or "atheists". On the paranormal article he has written a long rant [15] which is mostly trolling claiming Wikipedia editors are atheists and materialists suppressing evidence for the paranormal. I have reverted some of his edits but he will probably start an edit war on some of these articles. Doubter12 ( talk) 00:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Max Gerson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Needs eyes on - attempts to weasel-word the lede to imply that fringe 'therapy' isn't scientifically unsupported and potentially hazardous. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Please keep looking out for mention of "Tartessian" and "Celtic from the West" in articles related to Indo-European and specifically Celtic languages and peoples, to the Bronze Age of Europe, and the (pre-)history of Portugal and Spain. John T. Koch's and Francisco Villar's proposal, in various publications since 2010, that the (obscure and quite ancient) Tartessian language (of southern Portugal and southwestern Spain) was a Celtic language, due to the activities of POV-pushing editors, keeps popping up in at times only marginally related articles, variously presented as unqualified fact (as in Indo-European languages), or more carefully worded, but conspicuously – and conveniently – neglecting to mention the failure of this proposal to gain significant traction in the scholarly community (as in Celts), or with puffery added (as in Atlantic Bronze Age), as well as typically an exaggerated number of footnotes, apparently intended to impress the reader, falling afoul of WP:REFBLOAT and WP:RECENT.
It is important to know that Koch and Villar are by no means outsiders or amateur linguists, but respected specialists in Celtic studies and historical Indo-European linguistics, but the significant methodical issues with their readings cannot be ignored and have not gone unnoticed. Except in Tartessian language, Celtic languages and perhaps Tartessos and Celts, the proposal hardly even merits mention at all. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
There's also Atlantean (documentary series) and perhaps more articles like it which display POV in being overly sympathetic to the fringe view and playing down or failing to mention its problems, or letting misunderstandings go uncorrected.
No mainstream linguist is going to claim that the native population of the British Isles claiming a "Celtic" ethnic identity (itself a recent historical-linguistics-based construct, make no mistake) is derived purely from Iron Age populations of Central Europe – that it goes back exclusively to a single source, which would mean that there were no inhabitants preceding the Celtic/Indo-European influx (which the archaeological facts are incompatible with), or that they were completely eradicated (as some earlier scholars held); the genetic and archaeological data are easy to reconcile with the linguistic facts if we allow for multiple origins: ancient Celts, immigrants from the continent, could well have formed only a relatively thin ruling class over a native population with links to the south – Iberia and perhaps North Africa. But their original languages (which formed a substratum to Celtic) are completely unknown, making the British Isles, unfortunately, a blank spot on the linguistic map of Bronze Age Europe – only fragments of this map can be reconstructed. (See Insular Celtic languages and Goidelic substrate hypothesis for some more detail on the issue, and Pre-Celtic for investigations beyond linguistics.) -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
There is a
fringe theory that Kosovo is still part of Serbia. (In reality, it
declared independence a few years ago). In prose, it's generally a good idea to cover both sides in context, but categorisation doesn't really permit such nuances, and unfortunately people still seem keen to use categorisation to
revoke the independence. What's the best way to deal with this?
bobrayner (
talk) 03:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Calling it a hoax in the title of the article seems a step too far without much better sourcing. To title it a hoax currently violates WP:COMMONNAME. My impression is that we have there is wide consensus to use words like "hoax" in a title sparingly and only when it's well-documented that a outright hoax was perpetuated. Note the rarity in List of religious hoaxes and List of hoaxes.
Because of the multiple types of hoaxes, many with legal aspects, there are NPOV and BLP issues with using the label at all, but I believe the use of "hoax" within the article is appropriate given the sources. However, we do not have sources that go into the hoax accusations in any depth, nor do we have sources demonstrating the label is commonly used. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This article may also need sorting out. The references are amazon and his own website. 82.1.154.153 ( talk) 01:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is complete original research. I spent over an hour looking for sources, all I could find was one review and a mention of it in a few other UFO books which are unreliable. I believe a redirect may be the solution and perhaps mention the book on the article on John Keel if any reliable sources can found but an entire article to see is completely over the top as no references can be found to back up what is written in the article. 82.1.154.153 ( talk) 01:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is in a seriously bad state (mostly original research), and the references that are cited are to fringe UFO websites. Most of the article is similar to what is on the Interdimensional hypothesis. 82.1.154.153 ( talk) 01:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see the edit history of this article, it was a redirect since 2007 but was restored recently. This seems dodgy fringe material. 82.1.154.153 ( talk) 01:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Owner of the "Museum of the Weird" who recently opened a new exhibit of the "Minnesota Iceman" is looking to remove mention of it being a hoax, despite his obvious WP:COI. Bears watching. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
A bunch of sockpuppet accounts has been deleting things from the Mary Baker Eddy article, he admitted in his edit history to being a "Christian scientist" and his agenda appears to be deleting any criticism from the article and adding in fringe sources. He's done the same on the Christian Science article it seems as well in the past. 82.1.154.153 ( talk) 05:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add more views to that section? Smacks of WP:FRINGE. It's currently mostly based on Levin's publications. A search in Google Books finds plenty of material... Someone not using his real name ( talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Article about a perpetual motion machine that was patented in the 1970's. Lots of weasel-words about "some people think this is impossible", needs more neutral language on perpetual motion. Additionally, not much notability is established in the article; the only source is "FreeEnergyNews.com"; a quick Google didn't turn up anything that looks too reliable. Mildly Mad T C 17:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Fritz Springmeier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Cathy O'Brien ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, User:Dougweller gave me good advice and I edited what he recommended. He did not make any changes after that. Shanethegadberry ( talk)
A new editor and an IP have been attempting to make some changes that I would not consider WP:NPOV on Talk:Burzynski Clinic. I'm short on time (which is really just my excuse for really not wanting to deal with these types of conversations anymore :D) but some gentle explaining of neutrality might be helpful before this editor gets him/herself in trouble. Noformation Talk 21:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Has non-std ideas about what heat is. Not sure whether he's a crank or what, but may need to be monitored if he doesn't cease (or is made to desist). Mangoe ( talk) 23:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This is borderline fringe. An nearly SPA editor (at least in his recent postings) is insisting at human genome that to refer to it as "the human genome", with the the, gives the article a "bias in favor of 'big science'" and so has replaced "The human genome" at the start with all kinds of combinations to avoid using that specific phrase. He also keeps restoring text (currently a whole section, the first after the lede) to indicate that (as opposed to just 'human genome') the specific phrase 'the human genome' has a special meaning (at one point putting in the article that it was used by scientists to camouflage their differing interests). While the section is littered with references, only one actually comments on the use of the phrase itself and it doesn't say what he portrays. More eyes would be helpful. Agricolae ( talk) 04:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Some discussion coming to boil over whether Chopra's views on quantum science are really fringe, and whether/how skeptic commentary on him should be present. Wise editors' opinions could benefit the discussion I am sure. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
A new article on a case where an Italian judge apparently awarded damages to a family claiming the MMR vaccine causes autism. Some content on the same topic was added at MMR vaccine controversy which I reverted. No scientific literature is cited. I'm leaning towards a PROD or AfD but I'd like to ask for opinions here first. :-) Arc de Ciel ( talk) 12:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Possible topic ban in this fringe-medical-related topic. Mangoe ( talk) 15:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This seems like rather an exceptional claim (that circumstantial information is transmitted to subsequent generations genetically), also evident in the links from here. The Överkalix study seems to have had some press coverage and is also treated as "reviving" the evolutionary debate in this piece. Any geneticists in the house?
An editor has raised concerns with FT/N on UT:Jimbo, thread can be found at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#fringe_theories_notice_board_vs_forum_shop_.26_canvasing. Noformation Talk 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Could use some eyes on Acupuncture. Some editors are trying to elevate some unsupported or poorly supported explanations to the level of "theories". A lot of the material in the section on "Proposed mechanisms of action" is not supported by sources complying with WP:MEDRS, and the most widespread explanation, the placebo effect, is played down, probably violating WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
A new user Seleukos256 has been pushing some fringe views and deleting scientific sources on the precognition article. I did some further research. Here is one of his comments (it is obviously the same guy):
"I visited the Wikipedia page on precognition this morning and it was awful. It said things like: no replicable experiments, violates scientific principles (I have a Ph.D. in physics and say this is a B.S. excuse and no I don't mean the degree), no scientists believe in it... yadda, yadda. I fixed and replaced some of the most painfully false statements today. But I think we need to be more proactive in promoting and defending scientific parapsychological results on Wikipedia. It is the first place many people go for reference.
If you see these kinds of statements on Wikipedia pages, please DELETE! The "skeptics" have nothing to back them up."
From a spiritualist blog [16]. Eyes may need to be put on some of these parapsychology articles, I suspect that other stuff may start being deleted and all kinds of crackpot claims are going to be inserted. I don't have time for this because I am busy working on some other articles. But just giving a heads up, if anyone wants to watch that article. Thanks. Fodor Fan ( talk) 19:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Ruggero Santilli#Page seems to be giving credibility... The page is giving credibility to the man and to several of his theories, that are clearly fringe theories and fringe science, without giving due warning, or showing credible sources of refutation, thus giving it undue weight. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 13:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I've put the article March Against Monsanto up for deletion. It is of interest to this board because the reason for deletion is that the article inherently fails WP:NPOV/ WP:FRINGE because it appears that the scientific consensus can not be stated without WP:OR. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Taking this case of the claim that GM food has adverse affects health (which runs counter to science) it seems 3 options are in play:
I am not sure the guidance in WP:FRINGE gives clear enough direction in this kind of case. It says "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Is the MaM article "covering" the GM health view "in detail"? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
(Add) And it seems to me the fringe guidance is a lot softer here than the actual
policy itself, which states "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. ... This also applies to other fringe subjects ..." (my bolding).
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI
A new editor appears to be re-inserting POV pushing content without discussion to make it appear that the Atacama skeleton is possible alien. More eyes are welcome, IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place. They told me at the Administration noticeboard to try here. Can Mindfulness (psychology) really treat these diseases? I'm not a scientist so I can't decipher the medical studies. Maybe someone can look at them if they have time. Alexbrn reviewed the MBSR article but I think this one needs a review also. Research suggests that mindfulness practices are useful in the treatment of pain,[4] stress,[4] anxiety,[4] depressive relapse,[4] disordered eating,[4] and addiction.[24][25] Mindfulness has been investigated for its potential benefit for individuals who do not experience these disorders, as well, with positive results. Mindfulness practice improves the immune system[26] and alters activation symmetries in the prefrontal cortex, a change previously associated with an increase in positive effect and a faster recovery from a negative experience.-- LarEvee ( talk) 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth naming the article, but on a long-standing problem article I added MiszaBot archiving to the talk page after 7 days. This seems to have vastly reduced the problems, since threads didn't stay active to be constantly resurrected. May be worth trying elsewhere. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about the definition of astrology at talk:astrology. Part of the problem is that our treatment of the concept of divination is split between two articles, Divination, which deals with religious rituals, and Fortune-telling which deals with non-religious forms of divination like astrology. I'm reluctant to use the term "fortune-telling" in the definition in the Astrology article, and would much prefer to use the term "divination". However, that would mean wikilinking the word "divination" with the article on fortune-telling. Further input would be appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 06:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Um, I'm surprised by your evident belief that I haven't supplied full bibliographic information for both sources I mentioned. Could you please tell me what information you're looking for that I haven't already included? If you want the source of my information on Brockback's Ph.D dissertation (I understand that British use the word "thesis" instead), you can check Patrick Curry's website
here.
By the way, the amazon link you supplied shows that Whitfield's Astrology: A History is indeed the same book that was published by the British Library. The Abrams version has a different-colored cover, but the design is the same. If you scroll down to the bottom of your link, you will see a reference to the "British Museum" edition of the book, and of course the British Library used to be part of the British Museum. Evidently Abrams published the book in the United States simultaneously with the British Library in England. My copy (published by the British Library) indicates that the text is copyrighted (2001) by Peter Whitfield, and the illustrations are copyrighted by the British Library (with its extensive collection of old manuscripts which are the basis of the illustrations).--
Other Choices (
talk) 00:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal to split List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. The talkpage section is Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Splitting article: science .26 non-science topics. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This posting is simply a notification about a discussion regarding a possible article split. It is not a thread to discuss what is or is not pseudoscience. Nor is the list talk page discussion. Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Cross post about an article filled with pseudoscientific medical claims: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There has been some to-and-fro recently on a couple of article for substances which are associated with fringe claims of cancer treatment: Essiac and Soursop (and its related article Annona muricata). Wise eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 18:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Add Annonaceae to the list of articles to which Prokaryotes has added material not supported by WP:MEDRS. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Chandra Wickramasinghe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article seems to be suffering from fringe bloat and quite a bit of coatracking. Wickramasinghe is a giant in the field of ISM studies and, as one of the last students of the late, great Fred Hoyle, is an important connection to the previous generation of astrophysicists. However, the panspermia ideas that he has been promoting over the last 30 years or so have gotten stranger and stranger to the point that he has ended up working with predatory open access journals like the Journal of Cosmology to promote his views.
A culling, at the very least, is probably what would be best here. I encourage editors to read through the ongoing disputes and decide how best to handle this delicate matter.
jps ( talk) 18:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor is arguing that their addition of a non-notable UFO hoax is notable based on two original research docs posted at scribd.com. They also cite an article at nicap.org and fringe source www.theufochronicles.com sources…which mention nothing of any "hoax", but do promote fringe views regarding alien UFOs deactivating nuclear missiles at a military base. I've reverted once, and they've requested that the matter be taken to an appropriate noticeboard, so here it is. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Google Books However there is a dispute as to whether this is fringe?
See most up to date sources:
Issue
Does the aforementioned scholarship on the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories?
Importance
Although most scholars no longer believe that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, many do believe the Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead or source of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew (hence the name). (See composite authorship)
- Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
After a somewhat confused start due to my typing skills, we must look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories and see if they apply here. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. For something to be a fringe theory, it must be A) FRINGE and B) a THEORY
Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not fringe as its existence is supported, not only by the above contested sources but also by older sources from Lessing to Ehrman.
Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not a theory but a "statement of fact". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)
This "statement of fact" may be contested. Scholars can debate whether or nor the "Gospel of Matthew" was a translation of the "Hebrew Gospel". They may argue that the Hebrew Gospel is the Fountainhead but they cannot say Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is theoretical.
Therefore WP Fringe Theory cannot apply. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has become about SCOPE and WEIGHT, which can only be decided by consensus. Therefore, it should be ended here and continued on the article talk page or in DRN. Ignocrates ( talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
In fairness to Ret.Prof, he brought this question to FTN because of a lot of loose talk on the article talk page about the fringiness of the topic of a Hebrew Gospel as a justification for the deletion of reliably-sourced content. I think we are in general agreement that this dispute is not, and never was, about FRINGE. The beginning of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith signals the end of rational discussion, so I propose this emotive dialogue stay on the article talk page and we finish up here. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Tgeorgescu - I just finished reading your comments, and I think I found the problem. You were reading from an older version of Ehrman. Please look at the following quotes, but sure to follow the links to see their context! Feel free to point out any errors, add any important material you feel was left out and of course add more up to date sources. Thanks for taking the time to join our discussion.
Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 After quoting the Papias tradition which states "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue"
It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now I hope this clears up the confusion. Thanks for being patient with an old guy who was clearly overwhelmed! Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Ignocrates Thanks for restoring sanity when needed! -
Ret.Prof (
talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor has expressed concern on the talk page that Quantum mind does not belong in the pseudoscience category and that the article is somehow biased. I disagree, but I wonder what others think. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 23:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
A new editor, Kimen027 ( talk · contribs) continues to add material to this article sources to Henriette Mertz and David Hatcher Childress despite my post to her talk page. I've reverted her twice but that's had no effect. I'll notify her about this discussion. Dougweller ( talk) 20:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Could use more eyes on Stephen C. Meyer. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 18:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
On August 8, I ran into a notice that Poaching was on the list of articles for improvement. At first glance, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Poaching&oldid=567139087 I saw that the lead was a very unusual definition that did not represent the common meaning. The acts of poaching section directly listed items as poaching that are legal in many places, confirmed by links in the article. I broke that list into two sublists that were more consistent with current law and more factually correct. Both of these edits were removed with no real comment. I continued to try to accommodate the non standard definition with little constructive feedback from the other editor. I have had several edits reverted or removed, also with little or no communication. I perceive the attitude of the other editor as superior and dismissive. At this point I feel that the three reversion rule has been violated. In my opinion, the conflict is primarily over language and references that impact the NPOV in this article.
The lead still contains wording consistent with the overly broad definition that I do not believe belongs in the lead as it represents a very radical redefinition of poaching that belongs, as far as I can see, in a historical discussion of the motivations and effects of such a broad, nonstandard, and I contend, unworkable definition. I am characterizing the definition as fringe and feel way to much emphasis was and still is being given to this definition.
It is clear from quick look at the Talk:Poaching page that I do not have the tolerance or perspective to deal with this sort of conflict. I would very much like to be able to continue to contribute to Poaching It is severely lacking in historical and contextual information that I would love to help develop and reference. I have neither the time nor inclination to play this game and I am asking for administrative intervention. Economic Refugee ( talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor, Edgth has now twice removed a cited passage about pansexuality, asserting that it is "fringe". I do not believe this to be the case; the cited passage is from a reference text. If there is a dispute about weight, that is something that can be discussed, but that is a different matter. Further, this editor cites the number of page watchers and the length of time since the edit was made as evidence that it is uncontroversial, and I believe this to be inappropriate.
As "fringe" has a fairly specific meaning on WP, and the talk page there is fairly inactive, I am coming here for suggestions. The pattern of other edits this editor has made seemed controversial and edit-war-like enough for me to post at WP:AN3. these were also on the topic of human sexuality. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 08:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
for the record, this is the edit in question. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 08:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It's probably not quite right to describe this as a FRINGE issue, but the edit which simplified the with-kitchen-sink text is welcome IMHO. The linked sexual orientation has a navbox that shows only "Asexual ∙ Bisexual ∙ Heterosexual ∙ Homosexual" as sexual orientations, and that seems good enough for the lead of Human sexuality which has no other mention of "pansexual". Johnuniq ( talk) 09:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Human sexuality may also involve a person's sexual attraction to another person – which may be determined by their sexual orientation – whether it is to the opposite sex ( heterosexuality), to the same sex ( homosexuality), having both these tendencies ( bisexuality), to all gender identities ( pansexuality or bisexuality), or not being attracted to anyone in a sexual manner ( asexuality).
Is this a fringe theory or reliably sourced fact? Independent, high quality scholarship on this issue have concluded that the United States political movement known as the Tea Party consists of both grassroots and astroturf components. Several Wikipedia editors, however, have called this conclusion a "fringe theory"
[20]
[21]
[22], stating that the movement "
is 100% grass-roots" and
It's a grass-roots political movement. Period. These Wikipedia editors further claim that any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists.
Sample of reliable sources describing the movement as both grassroots and astroturf
|
---|
|
The contesting Wikipedia editors have not, to date, produced any reliably sourced refutation of the scholarly consensus that the movement is made up of both grassroots and astroturf elements. They have, however, cited several sources (mostly news media reports) that only mention the "grassroots" components without mentioning the "astroturf" components, as proof that the movement must therefore be 100% grassroots. We'd like some uninvolved input on this matter. Are the above sources promoting a fringe theory? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic ( talk) 16:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be forumshopping at its most intriguing. Not only is it not related to the stated topic of this noticeboard, is not phrased in a neutral manner etc. it also manages to take absurdist potshots at other editors without notifying them of this discussion, yet another venue for what the OP has posted in far too many places already. [23], the TPm moderated discussion page (multiple posts), [24] self-deletion of his own RfC/U, BLP/N, AN and AN/I posts inter alia all pretty much insisting that he only wants the WP:TRUTH <g> Collect ( talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Collect says: "It [this thread] also manages to take absurdist potshots at other editorswithout notifying them of this discussion."
Xenophrenic responds: "I did indeed announce this posting to the editors."
Well, I can certainly attest to having no knowledge of this and was clearly the recipient of an inaccurate portrayal by Xenophrenic. To his defense, though, I would probably also avoid inviting fellow wikipedians to a thread I've used to make up bullshit positions for them and which cannot be verified because I'm talking out of my ass.
But I digress. †TE† Talk 01:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic: "I didn't attribute any of those quotes explicitely [ sic] to you."
Is this a fringe theory or reliably sourced fact? Independent, high quality scholarship on this issue have concluded that the United States political movement known as the Tea Party consists of both grassroots and astroturf components. Several Wikipedia editors, however, have called this conclusion a "fringe theory" [25] [26] [27], stating that the movement " is 100% grass-roots" and It's a grass-roots political movement. Period. These Wikipedia editors further claim that any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists. The contesting Wikipedia editors have not, to date, produced any reliably sourced refutation of the scholarly consensus that the movement is made up of both grassroots and astroturf elements. They have, however, cited several sources (mostly news media reports) that only mention the "grassroots" components without mentioning the "astroturf" components, as proof that the movement must therefore be 100% grassroots.
Oh, and if Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs) would please inform ThinkEnemies ( talk · contribs) after the removal of these patently false positions are complete it would be really helpful. Thanks. †TE† Talk 19:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)