This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Constructal law - comes across as pseudo-science pushed by one academic, but perhaps not. The talk page has a couple important questions that should be answered and yet haven't been in nearly a year, which rings alarm bells to me. Also, one of its proponents, an editor "Mr env" User:Mre env seems to be pushing it in many inappropriate places, like the advocates of other pseudo-sciences do, where links to the article are added to likely irrelevant pages. The editor also seems to push flattering references to works by the academic who "discovered" constructal law, Adrian Bejan, making me think there might be some biased relationship between the editor and the academic. Considering the probably dubious nature of the topic and the somewhat insidious way references are being pushed into various topics by someone who might have a conflict of interest, hopefully someone can review this and figure out what to do. 38.65.195.5 ( talk) 00:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reading the cited paper, it smacks of trying to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which squarely puts it into fringe territory. 38.65.195.5 ( talk) 00:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you put it up for deletion. Also Adrian Bejan doesn’t look notable either. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Adrian Bejan is definitely notable; I have no opinion on Constructal law right now though. Jeremy112233 ( talk) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggest against AfD as it appears to be a notable WP:FRINGE topic. But I am listing on the WP:NPOV noticeboard. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting a sense that there are two parts to this theory: the perhaps reasonable side that there may be a better way of describing flows in natural systems, and the other that puts its importance as being as great as that of the laws of thermodynamics (Constructal Law, really?). It seems the papers that are cited in the article that aren't written by Adrian Bejan are part of the former group, but most of the Constructal Law page and especially the parts that cite Bejan are very much of the latter. I imagine that would fall under NPOV stuff - especially since after some digging, it seems our editor Mre env was one of Bejan's collaborators. Anyway, as a novice to editing wikipedia, I'm not really sure what would meet criteria for being notable, but this does not strike me as such, since the web presence seems to be a couple of papers and a bit of press that got hoodwinked into reporting it. 38.65.195.5 ( talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And it should really not be linked to by pages such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics, maxwell's demon, arrow of time, even the logistic function and diminishing returns. Is there any way to prevent that? 38.65.195.5 ( talk) 17:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment of the NPOV issue. The only way to deal with inappropriate linking is to find the links where they exist and remove them. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help. I wouldn't have known where to begin with this process. I'll remove the links where I find them. Also, perhaps the title should be changed back to Constructal Theory? It was changed to law by Mre env, if I recall correctly from the edit comments, because he had a conversation with Bejan who claimed it was worthy of that status. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. 38.65.195.5 ( talk) 17:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Do secondary sources call it Constructural Theory or Constructural Law? Because we should go with what it is called by secondary sources if possible. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just going through the cited sources in the article, it's not very clear. Some articles call it a theory, some call it a law. Even some of Bejan's recent articles call it a theory while earlier ones call it a law. I would think those are primary sources anyway. I'm unaware of any secondary sources, which is why I'm still doubtful of notability. Still, the title isn't the source of the problems. 38.65.195.5 ( talk) 18:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondary source is anything about this theory / law written by somebody who wasn't instrumental in codifying it. Including supports or critiques of Bejan's work especially. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find anything that I would consider to be a good secondary source. That might be my own failing though. 38.65.195.5 ( talk) 17:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you review the references currently on the article? Simonm223 ( talk) 18:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Most of the references were authored by Bejan. Of the few that remained, I went through the ones that mentioned constructal somewhere in the title, written by only a handful of authors, and they were still divided. I got a strong sniff of fringe from those too (some seemed alright though, the ones relating to engineering problems mainly, as I described earlier). I'm not particularly wedded to it being changed to constructal theory anyway, but the more I look into it, the more I question its notability. 38.65.195.5 ( talk) 19:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Remember that something can be fringey and still be notable as long as WP:DUE applies. If it is notable among fringe theorists then we present it that way. I'm going to suggest based on what you're saying that changing from Law to Theory might work well within the boundaries of WP:NPOV as this doesn't seem to describe what would be recognized as a set of actual physical laws. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That was my thought on the law/theory issue. While there isn't really a rigorous definition of what a law is, I don't think anyone outside of this fringe group would consider it one as such. While I don't know all of the rules, I wasn't saying it was not notable because it was a fringe topic, but rather because I can only find a handful of people even talking about it. Seriously though, I don't have the experience to judge this, so I defer to you and anyone else with more knowledge on this matter. 38.65.195.5 ( talk) 21:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe article about a forged document, but the article also seems to be putting forth the idea that the story of Adam and Eve comes from the Hindu religion, eg that "Adimo" can be found in the Rigveda and that " Adimo is a character of a folk tale, which was written by Ramutsariar, about 2,000 of years before Bible". Dougweller ( talk) 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Loving the journalistic "French philosopher Voltaire, who has been criticised...". Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm in a grumpy mood and am tempted to section blank the Adimo section. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just so you guys know there is a slight extenuating circumstance. Some other editors on the article are trying to mentor the one who is responsible for the majority of edits. I'm still keeping an eye on it but think a light touch might be appropriate in light of the ongoing development of the editor. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This WP:FRINGEBLP survived a deletion discussion last decade, but I'm not sure the guy is all that notable. Do we have independent sources for this article? Can we clear out some of the cruft?

jps ( talk) 22:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how anything has changed since the last discussion. Once notable, always notable is even mentioned in there. There are 2-3 MSM citations covering the guy referenced in the article alone. Seems like a notable crank. 0x0077BE [ ^talk/ _contrib] 22:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We may be in an era where Wikipedia requires more than just two newspaper articles and a videoblog on the CNN Money site to qualify as serious independent notice. The bigger issue, of course, is that the majority of the article is serving as a soapbox. Some reference to primary sources from Santilli is fine and to be expected, but the vast majority of the content is either referenced to such material or simply regurgitating his CV. jps ( talk) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that notability has become more strict since 2007? I'm not sure I agree. No one's saying that those are the only things that establish his notability, I just said they were the only ones in the article. I really don't think that this article is going anywhere. Regarding your second point, I took a quick look and it seems like that can be remedied either by adding balance to the relevant sections or, where appropriate, argue for cutting back some sections which give undue weight to his theories. I didn't look too carefully, but I thought that it was clear enough that he's a crank and that his crazy ideas don't have their own wikipedia pages for a good reason. I don't think it would be difficult to reword the paragraphs in such a way that the information about what he believes is still there but put into perspective by contrasting it with the mainstream scientific view. 0x0077BE [ ^talk/ _contrib] 23:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It might be easy enough to do that, but I'm sorta at a loss since I'm not as familiar with this guy as some of the others who seem to remember him from the media splashes he made from time-to-time. I would appreciate seeing what a better article might look like. Right now, the "external" notability of this person is drowned out by a lot of the noise. jps ( talk) 23:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gone in and deleted some of the more poorly sourced information. There is a lot of self-referential material in there. He's by far the most frequently cited source but, at the very least, his conflict with other researchers, lawsuits and bizarrely antisemetic claims of conspiracy have attracted referenced outside attention enough to make him notable. Better sources needed for a lot of things. Simonm223 ( talk) 22:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Good article nominee, and I'm actually leaning towards passing it, but this is one of those cases where there's so much quackery around the subject that we need to get things right the first time. Could everyone please have a look, make any appropriate tweaks, and tell me if you see any major problems that I might be missing?

Cheers!

Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 15:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Better than most fringe stuff that comes our way. I'm not an expert on medical quackery specifically - but it passes the sniff test from my end. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Article looks good in terms of contextualisation. I see Jmh649 and Yobol have been doing the recent editing (with Yobol doing the nom) which is generally a safe bet that it's WP:NPOV. Second Quantization ( talk) 19:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Think we could slightly improve the lead, but once that's done, I'm going to promote it. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 18:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any non-fringe sources to demonstrate notability for this wheatgrass-eating Bigfoot knock-off? It's also infecting our Akron, Ohio article, cited to something called the "Bigfoot Research Organization." - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't look particularly notable. At least not with the current refs - a blog and a book in Swedish. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The only source that comes close to being independent and objective is a 1997 issue of Backpacker Magazine: [1]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If the History Channel Monster Investigations thing is true, that might an indication that it's a more widely covered mythical creature thing and might be notable, in which case it just needs expansion and cleanup. We won't find any reliable sources claiming that it exists, but that's true of any cryptid. 0x0077BE [ ^talk/ _contrib] 21:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Where the only substantial coverage of a topic is from dubious sources, I prefer deletion, because it's impossible for us to have a neutral article (unless we resort to some kind of synthesis about how it can't be true/real because reliable sources say that other similar things can't be true/real). bobrayner ( talk) 22:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm a habitual Special:Random visitor, so I prefer there to be stub articles that can be improved by people who stumble across it randomly - which is to say that I prefer to see articles on notable subject stripped down to the core set of sourced statements and built-up by curious people who find the article but find it lacking.

In this specific case, the content doesn't look horrible - if you'll notice in the article, the bigfoot research sites are cited for claims about why Grassman is unlikely to exist and is probably about 80% true (it's true, but there's also a burden of proof issue, etc). The appearance section needs to be fundamentally rewritten and should probably be removed until sources are found - since it's written in an in-universe way and it's not sourced at all. The "Investigations" section goes a long way towards establishing notability and just needs to be cleaned up a bit and sourced. Definitely not the worst fringe thing I've ever seen. 0x0077BE [ ^talk/ _contrib] 00:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh heck no. Not by a long shot. Simonm223 ( talk) 00:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are objecting to. The notability? If it's true that it's been the subject of 3 different television documentaries, it definitely feels a lot more notable than a lot of the "Latvian Cricket Player" articles I've seen. I mean, maybe cryptids have different standards of notability. Are you objecting to the idea that it's not horrible? I think it looks a lot better with the "Appearance" section cut out, again, better than many fringe topics I've seen. 0x0077BE [ ^talk/ _contrib] 02:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The History channel is generally full of nonsense. I don't think featuring on that is an indicator of much. Discovery channel is similarly shoddy. If the sources don't exist to discuss it, then it hasn't met WP:FRINGE#Notability. Second Quantization ( talk) 17:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've cleaned it up. No matter that they call them "investigations", I think all can agree that the TV shows are entertainment, and so should be placed in the context of popular culture.- LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

anyone familiar with

• Barry Gusterson and
• Breakthrough Breast Cancer

The one has serious autobiography problems, and I havent yet checked out the other, but anything calling itself "Breakthrough" cancer research screams of Fringe medicine. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Bit harsh, Mr. TRiPOD dontcha think? - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 14:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The second one is just a cancer research charity; I can't see anything wrong with it. Mangoe ( talk) 14:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem fringe to me or anything, but it definitely reads like ad copy and needs to be made NPOV. 0x0077BE [ ^talk/ _contrib] 17:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Tagged the primary sources and copyedited the first, it still needs a real source. Toned down the ad copy on the second. Neither is fringe. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the latter isn't WP:FRINGE, although the title could easily raise suspicions for somebody used to working on such articles... bobrayner ( talk) 17:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A paranormal concept of Michael Thalbourne. All references are either primary/unreliable (from Thalbourne) in parapsychology journals or in fringe paranormal books. I can't find any reliable references for this concept apart from one mention of it in a psychology book [2]. I think a redirect to Thalbourne would be suitable. An entire article to this fringe concept seems unnecessary as there are not enough reliable sources on the subject matter. Goblin Face ( talk) 15:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - a redirect to Thalbourne would seem appropriate. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre-Marie Robitaille.

Input into this discussion would be appreciated.

jps ( talk) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems just over the line on WP:PROF also highly amusing, which isn't a justification for a Keep statement but remains deeply personally satisfying. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel like "amusing" is probably a good reason to delete, actually, considering the problematic aspects of WP:BLP. jps ( talk) 16:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's being used as a main source on a whole lot of fringe theory articles but its web presence seems just plain gone. Is this publication still extant? Here's its link: [ [3]] Simonm223 ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The wayback machine shows it going down sometime in 2012. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There's still time to subscribe! - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny considering they haven't bothered publishing an issue since 2009! Simonm223 ( talk) 20:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You may have gotten your urls mixed up. This one shows a Spring 2013 issue.

Yeah, wayback machine done me wrong. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is speciesism [4] [5] too fringe to be put in the "See also" section of Animal husbandry? -- Jeandré, 2014-02-19 t12:18z

I don't think it's fringe in the way we define it here. It's a political concept. I doubt whether it should be a See also for Animal husbandry, though. The juxtaposition implies a political statement: that animal husbandry is speciesist. Which some people would argue, but See also isn't the right way to introduce the idea. You might want to discuss on the talk page whether a section on farm animal welfare could be included. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a concept on the fringes of political thought and I think should be treated similarly to fringe theories. Remember that WP:FTN is a guideline for detailing how to follow WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:GNG etc. The same reasoning about fringe scientific views can be applied to all areas, and the WP:FRINGE article is deliberately vague (using scholarship instead of science etc). WP:ONEWAY should apply. A minor (in terms of relation to the article) and fringe political concept shouldn't be given undue prominence. Second Quantization ( talk) 00:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Second Quantization and Itsmejudith. FYI, I was the person who recommended that this user take the issue here. The talk page discussion has already begun at Talk:Animal_husbandry#Speciesism., but it is just between the two of us, and the article appears to have few watchers who want to weigh in, so to break the logjam and avoid endless tl;dr debate on an article that isn't on my A-list of places where I am working on content at the moment, I guess my take is that I'd like this user to provide some sources to indicate the relevance to the topic and then if those sources exist, we can discuss if there is an appropriate place for them in the article. I don't think it's relevant, it is an animal rights concept that appears to be on the fringes of the political spectrum, even by animal rights standards, and I suppose it's an open question if there is a scientific element to claims of speciesism. So have at it, folks. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This was created in December, 2013. It obviously slipped under the radar. There's some hilarious stuff in there, a lot of original research by the looks of it. Alfred Russel Wallace as a genetic argument for influence on ancient aliens? Goblin Face ( talk) 03:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Astronaut Creation Theory. jps ( talk) 13:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a strange article, no references at all and a quick look and I can't find anything reliable. It says he worked at the University of Gottingen but I can't find any reliable references for this. Only one book reference I can see mentions him [6] Von Daniken lol.. not exactly known for his reliability. He described Fiebag as a secondary school teacher. I think this could meet the criteria of being a quick delete. Goblin Face ( talk) 18:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Fiebag Goblin Face ( talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of this guy before, can't find any reliable references. As it stands the only references that mention him are dubious parapsychology links like Michael Talbot of the "hologram" fame or Raymond Moody. I think afd would be suitable here.

The same thing is happening with this guy Zdeněk Rejdák. It's either self-published sources, unreliable parapsychology journals or fringe writers like Michael Talbot being cited. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

When I read these articles I get the impression Wikipedia is trying to sell me on how important these people and their theories are/were. Not good. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Borderline. An AfD might or might not fly for Rejdák but the article definitely needs improvement. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't find any reliable sources for either Kafka or Rejdák. I think it's worthwhile submitting them for AfD. Goblin Face ( talk) 18:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Břetislav Kafka Goblin Face ( talk) 21:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an article related to dowsing but I can't find a single reliable reference for what it is supposed to be. Might be worth redirecting it to this article Earth radiation which I will try to improve. A similar article here Bovis scale. Any thoughts about what to do with these? Goblin Face ( talk) 03:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I redirected it to Dowsing. It only had two incoming links, one of which is Earth radiation, so I wanted to avoid redirecting back to that. Feel free to pick a better target, though... bobrayner ( talk) 04:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the other incoming link is from Wawel Chakra. Quite an entertaining article. bobrayner ( talk) 04:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wawel Chakra should be deleted. A fun article but mostly original research. Goblin Face ( talk) 02:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a rather unknown psychic. Only references I can find are his own website, paranormal blogs or youtube. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Coffey is at the very least a notable fraud. He's very well known within the Psychic fandom. He's also been the target of a few exposes in the skeptical press. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Any specific sources? I trawled through google scholar and books but couldn't see anything, Second Quantization ( talk) 17:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a list of RSes provided in the second AfD. They'd be a good place to start. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources posted at that AfD which I looked at were credulous and provided no analysis to work from. I'm generally in favour of keeping articles where the critical reporting exists (e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural breast enhancement), but it needs to exist and be shown, Second Quantization ( talk) 17:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

My copies of Skeptic magazine are all boxed up at the bottom of a closet right now but I think I recall reading about him too. It's somewhere to start. :) But the guy is well known... in those circles. That's how he ended up coming to the attention of mainstream papers such as the Winnipeg Free Press. Just remember to contextualize (without WP:SYNTH of course) as best you can the sources you have. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Check this link to Skeptic.com [ [7]] Simonm223 ( talk) 17:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

See Joe Nickell's opinion (which for some reason is absent in the present article). - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't get access to that book. What is Nickell's opinion - I am guessing he only mentions Coffey in brief? Goblin Face ( talk) 18:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Try flushing your browser or open with a different browser. It's a chapter of The Science of Ghosts: Searching for Spirits of the Dead, by Joe Nickell called "Chip Coffey and Paranormal State" in which he basically says Coffey was caught in fraud, and refers to a Miami Herald story on Coffey that Nickell contributed his critique of the subject to. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not got access to it. I think it's because I am outside of America. If you have access to the source you should add it into the article and include mention of his fraud. If reliable references can be found it would be worth keeping, I noticed a list has been compiled on the afd. I have looked for sources and couldn't find any but perhaps I have been slacking on this one lol. Goblin Face ( talk) 03:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Simonm223. I will hold you and Sgerbic personally responsible for bringing this article up to scratch since you insist on it being kept despite the absence of any sources. Every Afd the same poor sources are mentioned at AfD, but no improvements are made based on actually reliable sources. Second Quantization ( talk) 03:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Just as long as you keep WP:TIND in mind. This is not high up my priority list and the article does no harm existing. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A tiny article, needs eyes (and, if possible, expansion!) Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 21:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(add) In fact, after a good hunt around, this topic does not seem to receive any good coverage outside the world of Rosen/bodywork publications (which are currently being used in the article, wrongly IMHO). Even Quackwatch just gives it a passing mention. Wondering if it should be AfD'd. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 10:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My inclusionist tendencies say no. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But can we write a neutral article without good sources? What we've got now isn't neutral/reliable since we're sourcing claims of medical benefit to fringe sources. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 14:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We have the quackwatch article though so we can, as per WP:FRINGE note the claims of the less reliable sources and then follow up with Quackwatch says.... Simonm223 ( talk) 14:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should be including any dubious medical claims since it's "vital" ( WP:RS/MC) that Wikipedia not contain them, even if contradicted by Quackwatch ... and in this case Quackwatch is rather vague and doesn't address the claims that have been made. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 14:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's vital that wikipedia not report dubious medical claims as if they were true (in-universe explanation) however noting the existence of dubious medical claims falls within the boundaries of WP:FRINGE Simonm223 ( talk) 15:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, if we can contextualize (typically: "although claims are made that x is an effective treatment for y, research has found no evidence to support this"). My concern is we lack the RS for a proper context here. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 15:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This device doesn't seem to meet any WP standards of notability and lack serious in depth coverage by reliable sources. Past discussions indicate that the only reason the article exists is due to a single editor's filibustering efforts. LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to have the discussion in the right venue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ovilus. jps ( talk) 19:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Having difficulty finding any reliable references for this psychic. Goblin Face ( talk) 01:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

None found. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Volkhov - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing particularly wrong at the moment, though the article could use some style work, but there's been a low level debate going on over at global warming including links to this article added and removed - so it might be a good idea to keep eyes here unless somebody decides to try and slip something in the back-door. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now it has POV problems and is not an proper encyclopedic treatment of a fringe view. Even our articles on Holocaust denial and Vaccine controversies do not say in Wikipedia's voice that those theories are wrong. We simply report what the sources say and attribute it to those same sources.

Consider the difference between this...

"Holocaust denial is widely viewed as failing to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, principles that mainstream historians (as well as scholars in other fields) regard as basic to rational inquiry."

...and this...

"The argument also overlooks that other means of measuring global warming exist besides land surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years at all. In addition, some evidence suggests that the apparent 'lack of warming' over the past 15 years is just an artifact of insufficient coverage of certain parts of the globe in calculating global temperatures."

Notice that the first quote doesn't say, in Wikipedia's voice, that holocaust denial fails to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence? Of course we all know that it does fail to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, but the article simply reports what the sources (in this case Online Dimensions, a Journal of Holocaust Studies) say.

If you are concerned with someone "slipping something in the back-door", making the article encyclopedic and non-POV makes it harder to do that, because it makes it harder to introduce anything not directly supported by a reliable source. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

All I was planning on doing was getting it on some watch lists. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That being said - you'll note I mentioned some style issues. This is more a watch notice than anything else for me but if you want to take on making improvements be my guest. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia's voice versus in-text attribution, WP:ITA does say, "simple facts – "humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor" – are best left stated simply as facts rather than recast as opinions". There really are 'other means of measuring global warming'. -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to stop personifying things. Arguments do not "overlook" things. People making the arguments do. Whether they are "overlooking" the simple fact that there are other means of measuring global warming, whether they are deliberately obfuscating the truth, or whether they are too ignorant to know anything at all is not possible to say and certainly can't be easily sourced. jps ( talk) 22:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nigelj: I really don't see how critiquing an argument is a simple statement of fact, though. Even if the argument is obviously wrong on its face. 0x0077BE [ ^talk/ _contrib] 23:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Keep in mind that there are other ways of counting how many Jews were killed in WWII as well. Valid ways that from actual historians that come up with similar but not identical numbers, and invalid ways that the holocaust deniers prefer. Does that mean that one could insert the phrase "The argument also overlooks that there are other means of measuring deaths" into Criticism of Holocaust denial#Six million without being instantly reverted? Wikipedia does not evaluate what an argument overlooks. We report what a reliable source says concerning the argument. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If mainstream climate scientists were similar to holocaust deniers, I would see your point. Which do you regard as the fringe view? -- Nigelj ( talk) 12:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is bread and butter stuff for FTN and we shouldn't make heavy weather of it. Alongside any fringe theory we simply state the facts. Earth roughly spherical, millions not thousands of years old, homeopathic medicines pure water, perpetual motion not possibly except in a vacuum, humans evolved from ape-like ancestor, Atlantis an old Greek story. Keeping it simple is by far the best way to deal with accusations of POV. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Itsmejudith makes a good point. Let's keep it simple. bobrayner ( talk) 12:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It occurs to me that a lot of this discussion on FTN is going to be hard to find for anyone coming to this article later. Should we move/mirror/transclude this discussion to the talk page over at Global warming pause? 0x0077BE [ ^talk/ _contrib] 15:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a link c/o bobrayner currently IIRC (with thanks) but it wouldn't hurt to transclude this text - would be neighborly anyway. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Should be deleted or redirected. There's no references for this. Any thoughts? Goblin Face ( talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I redirected it to Mediumship Simonm223 ( talk) 16:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Hello From Heaven! by the same possible COI account. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a prickly situation because the ABC and Orlando Sentinel pieces exist - and do feature the book with the sort of credulous gee whiz soft-journalism that is so common for psychic stories. A weak case could be made that the book is notable. However considering the archive of the ABC article only exists on the youtube channel used by the authors to promote their book it is likely CoI went into the creation of the article. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone with High Beam access [8] could at least provide some NPOV balance and prevent the article from merely repeating the credulous promotional blurbs and an e-commerce link. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Having difficulty finding reliable references for this author. He seems to have written some fringe books in the vein of John Keel, but I can't find any book reviews. Goblin Face ( talk) 02:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

With zero reliable sources we're looking at probable AfD material unless WP:AUTHOR notability criteria can be met. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have found a slew of reliable sources here; definitely notable. The relevant section if you don't have access to Highbeam are the references used for the piece:

BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES:

Reginal, Robert, Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature, 1975-1991, Thomson Gale (Detroit, MI), 1992.

Bestsellers, April, 1985, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 11.

Booklist, January 1, 2003, Donna Seaman, review of The Philosopher's Secret Fire: A History of the Imagination, p. 812.

Books, February, 1990, review of Mercurius; or, The Marriage of Heaven and Earth, p. 16.

Books & Bookmen, March, 1985, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 29; February, 1986, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 75; July, 1986, review of The Rapture, p. 30.

British Book News, May, 1985, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 299; October, 1987, review of The Rapture, p. 703.

Folklore, 1996, review of Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld, p. 121.

Guardian (London), April 13, 2002, Vera Rule, review of The Philosopher's Secret Fire: A History of the Imagination, p. 13.

Kirkus Reviews, March 1, 1985, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 190.

Library Journal, November 15, 2002, Eloise R. Hitchcock, review of The Philosopher's Secret Fire: A History of the Imagination, p. 79.

Los Angeles Times, May 26, 1985, Huston Horn, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 9.

National Catholic Reporter, October 11, 1985, Lawrence S. Cunningham, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 12.

New Statesman and Society, November 25, 1994, David V. Barrett, review of Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld, p. 44.

Observer (London), June 8, 1986, review of The Rapture, p. 25; February 5, 1995, review of Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld, p. 26.

Publishers Weekly, February 8, 1985, review of The Serpent's Circle, p. 69.

Punch, July 2, 1986, review of The Rapture, p. 46.

Sunday Times (London), January 7, 1996, review of Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld, p. 10.

Times Literary Supplement, September 16, 1994, Nigel Barley, review of Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld, p. 32. Jeremy112233 ( talk) 18:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor currently trying to soften language regarding general scientific consensus surrounding Morphic Resonance. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually call people trolls but this guy User:Tom Butler obviously is one. Have a look at his user page which claims issues of censorship on wikipedia. Having a look through his edits also reveals nothing productive. It seems his existence on Wikipedia is to stir up controversy about Sheldrake and skeptics. I believe this guy was topic banned from editing pseudoscience articles? This may be my own misunderstanding but I don't think he should be editing that page. Goblin Face ( talk) 17:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

He's updated his talk page to "Out numbered by masked editors with way too much time on their hands and no social skills". Goblin Face ( talk) 17:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

He's also attacking Wikipedia and promoting his fringe alternative website [9] Goblin Face ( talk) 18:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tom's bullet proof. He isn't really a troll, he's been on that page for ages. He appears, for all intense and porpoises, to be a true believer acting In good faith. I don't understand him at all. -- Roxy the dog ( resonate) 18:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

People can do what they like on their own personal pages really. I'm not concerned about his accusations of a wikipedia cabal there. I just think that it'd be a good idea to keep an eye on the page itself until he relaxes a little - especially as the article is under a WP:1RR arbitration enforcement and has been an edit war zone in the past. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean Tom Butler? He's mostly harmless because he knows when to back down when he's losing. He was also warned at WP:ARBPSCI, so further concerns regarding him should be referred to WP:AE. jps ( talk) 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith on his part before taking it to WP:AE but he's had his 1 revert for today so let's see what happens. But, yeah, I reviewed the latest arbitration enforcement already. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) He is certainly kicking a dead horse this morning. Perhaps he could be appeased by"The scientific community, except for 6 scientists (group footnote with citations to the 6 scientist who don't through you out of the window for wasting their time when you bring up Morphic Resonance), consider it pseudoscience"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

and maybe a WP:NPA warning about the fact that all editors are absolutely entitled to be completely anonymous behind their masks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tom is generally not disruptive and stays within policy. However I was surprised to see this, from another party. I thought it might be humor...until I noted the numerous diffs being used to attack other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Tom Butler ( talk · contribs) understands that the only reason he hasn't been topic banned from Rupert Sheldrake article as an WP:SPA is because he's voluntarily taking a permanent break from it. Also, read literally, the heading of this thread... Barney the barney barney ( talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Peter Fenwick (neuropsychologist)
• Sam Parnia

Both have published some fringe work on NDEs. Having difficulty finding reliable references for their claims. Goblin Face ( talk) 02:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Parnia one didn't look that different from many other pages that had been edited by the marketing departments of hospitals to highlight the expertise of key staff. In other words, it was rife with WP:DUE violations such as a massive paragraph outlining his complaints regarding regulation of brain oxygenation technologies and such. Also a fair bit of WP:NPOV and an over-reliance on primary sources. I've cut back a lot of the chaff, it's not perfect but short of finding third party references to Parnia's work it's better than it was. Simonm223 ( talk) 03:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I managed to find this [10], useful but old though from 2009 and does not discuss his recent 2013 study. Goblin Face ( talk) 04:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fringe proponent on the parapsychology talk-page not listening to a word anyone has said, citing the same old pseudoscience etc and ignoring scientific references on the topic. Now claiming people are "strawmanning" in his edit summaries. Seems to be using the talk-page like a forum instead of proposing anything productive. Is it worth just ignoring him? Goblin Face ( talk) 23:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've given up. I tried engaging him on a document he provided that I hadn't seen before - an attempt to replicate Jahn's work - but he wouldn't hear a word I was saying regarding sample sizes, null hypotheses and the difference between statistical significance and proof. Fact is that anybody who holds up a study that was dismissed by PEAR for not supporting their hypothesis regarding PK as definitive proof is probably a true believer. Ignore him until he either: A) provides new material from non-fringe sources to review for WP:RS or B) actually starts trying to do his proposed substantial revamp. Frankly I doubt we'll see that - he knows he can use a talk page to post his "counter-argument" in a way that wouldn't get past WP:RS rules in the articlespace. Simonm223 ( talk) 00:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

He keeps leaving abusive comments on my talk page from his IP address 69.14.156.143. Goblin Face ( talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If he is leaving abusive comments on your talk page repeatedly you could take it to the Administrator's noticeboard / incidents. I... think that's the correct venue for that sort of behaviour. But (assuming you haven't already done so) it'd be best for you to ask him to stop first. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GF: I only left those comments because you wouldn't stop repeating yourself over and over again after I acknowledged that I had listened to those sources. PhiChiPsiOmega ( talk) 00:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Simon: Oh, my goodness. The sample sizes are fine, the null hypothesis had good reason to be rejected, and the statistical significance of the results cannot be explained away in the form you wanted to. I am sorry. I also caught you quote-mining several times. I'll ignore you if you want me to, but you're not giving me anything to work with. PhiChiPsiOmega ( talk) 00:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Back in August the Jahn article got a huge shot of the fringe theory stuff from the Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab article. The article is currently effectively a glowing endorsement of his parapsychological work. I was scanning it in light of the renewed interest in parapsychologists I've seen through my watchlist and found out. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove a bunch of the NPOV content but if there is anyone else who wants to reinsert something that should be in there (in case I cut too much), or if there is anyone who can find better sources for information please lend a hand. Simonm223 ( talk) 00:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I moved that stuff across as part of the cleanup of the PEAR page, which had been repeated POV-spammed by a COI editor. Whatever about its quality, which I think is rather dubious at best, it seemed quite out of place anyway, since it just discussed general psi theoretical models rather than offering info on the PEAR lab itself. I suppose there may be scope for restoring a sentence or two in the Jahn page, but prob not more. Tnx fr yr WP:BOLD-ness! jxm ( talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This was on my list. I will fix this article and add references I have quite a few. I will do it later today. Goblin Face ( talk) 02:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Simon, your cause isn't in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view. I have plenty of evidence showing that you two aren't approaching this objectively at all. The PEAR article looks fine and neutral. It doesn't need any "touch-ups", unless of course you want to stick in some stuff from Robert Todd Carroll's website that can be refuted quite easily. PhiChiPsiOmega ( talk) 00:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If the PEAR article looks fine now it's because I went and did a big revamp yesterday jxm did a big revamp a while ago. Some of that content ended up on Jahn and that's what I cleaned up. I've said this before but I'll say it again, please assume goodwill here. Believe it or not everybody on this noticeboard is dedicated to the Wikipedia project. The people who frequent this noticeboard also are working on a lot of articles that are A) at the periphery of the Wikipedia project and B) frequently problematic. And I've said this several times this week but if you believe POV doesn't agree with your perspective seek consensus. The people on the Parapsychology talk page have laid out for you repeatedly what we were looking for - so far you've been reticent to provide it. When you did provide what I asked for, a study I was not familiar with, I read it - and it wasn't a proof of PK - even the people at PEAR saw that in their rebuttal to it. Now I don't intend to argue with you further on that point as I don't believe anything good can come from it. If you have new sources for review that come from credible journals I'd be happy to look them over - if they are reliable and if their findings are included in a way that meets the criteria of Wikipedia I'll be all too happy to include them. So again, please, if you believe there is new evidence that vindicates your argument provide links, let us read it. Simonm223 ( talk) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"so far you've been reticent to provide it" No, I haven't. I addressed your problems with the study and found your counters lacking. "and it wasn't a proof of PK - even the people at PEAR saw that in their rebuttal to it." Their reply wasn't very objective. As said above, the sample sizes seem fine. PhiChiPsiOmega ( talk) 01:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It was one person. Simonm223 ( talk) 02:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And I acknowledged that. And I also pointed out to you how that person's effect was replicated, not a statistical fluke, not a result of sensory leakage (how you can even have that on an RNG test, I dunno), and worth further investigation. PhiChiPsiOmega ( talk) 02:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi all you are doing is trying to argue with various editors it's not helping the website. You have made no constructive edits or rational suggestions. Even on your own talk page several users have told you what the scientific consensus about parapsychology is and what the Wikipedia policies are relating to the area of pseudoscience and fringe theories and you have responded that you "disagree", you even claimed you disagree with the Arbitration Committee. The problem is that Wikipedia is not about your personal belief system it's about what the reliable references say and you don't have any of those to defend your case. You have openly admitted you disagree with the scientific literature that has been cited on Wikipedia about the subject... No matter what is said you are just going to keep arguing. I don't see anything good that can come out of this. Goblin Face ( talk) 02:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Just keep misrepresenting my position and my communication with other people. I disagree with the scientific consensus is (actually, the scientific consensus is more divided than you think), and I don't have a "personal belief system", as I've clarified for you a thousand times over. I've provided reliable references from Psychological Bulletin (You: "But they were from Radin's website. So there."), and when I brought up the JSE paper, you and your friend went nuts and gave me fallacious arguments against their position. I showed you evidence of a gray area on parapsychology, and you ignored that too. PhiChiPsiOmega ( talk) 02:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And their take of you two, by the way, is quite spot-on. I'm going to have to side with them and say goodbye. PhiChiPsiOmega ( talk) 02:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Center_for_Science_in_the_Public_Interest#Of_science - Is this GMO scaremongering, or is it a legitimate complaint? If it's just scaremongering, then surely the title of the section (it's a subheading of "Criticism") is pushing a fringe theory? Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 12:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not from a WP:RS - concerns about genetically modified foods run the gamut from moderately reasonable economic / legal concerns through to the nuttiest of fringe conspiracy theory and I don't know where on the spectrum this particular figure falls, but if the comment is coming from an unreliable source that hardly maters. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's on the fringes. Source is well known for anti-GMO crusading, Second Quantization ( talk) 14:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I happened across Diseases from Space, which seems to be a massive (43 kB) uncritical article on a book by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe about their fringe space pathogen hypothesis. The one acknowledgement of criticism is a mention that it was "a highly controversial book when it first came out in 1979" in the lead. I'm unsure what the SOP is for articles on books specifically promoting a certain view, so I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at it. It's already got a half page {{multiple issues}} box, so in need of cleanup no matter what. Kolbasz ( talk) 13:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I cut the theory section and removed a few citations that either had nothing to do with the statements they were attached to or failed to meet WP:RS I have concerns about notability and WP:NPOV still. If anyone is aware of any independent reviews of this book or responses to the authors that'd solve those problems. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I copy edited the remaining section a bit for neutrality (e.g. to remove things like "their research led them to the astonishing but inevitable conclusion that..." and the like). I think it's probably notable - the fringe hypothesis certainly is, and this seems to be one of the first things they published on it - but I suspect that finding sources is going to be a pain. Kolbasz ( talk) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. You're probably right. Panspermia is certainly a notable theory and this seems to fall under its aegis. I'm not rushing to AfD on this one - but we've got to find some reliable sources for it or eventually somebody probably will. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Which, actually, hey, there's a few usable refs on the Panspermia page. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This one netted me a user page vandal. Lol! Simonm223 ( talk) 10:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Achievement unlocked? :) Kolbasz ( talk) 16:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I just added the Fringe Theory Template on the Joel Fuhrman article. With the following comments on the talk page. "...since there is no counter points made to Mr. Fuhrman's claims in the article, specifically about his health equation. He has made many claims that claim he can cure any number of diseases including certain kinds of cancer with diet alone. This article needs a complete rewrite, eventually; the problem is most of the media attention that he has gotten is positive, despite his dubious claims." VViking _{Talk Edits} 13:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Are Riki Ott's claims of government coverup, and some of the other toxicity claims in the Corexit article (especially in the criticism section) fringe? A review of the talk page shows that the community there does not consider NOAA, the EPA, and other government agencies as reliable sources because of the alleged coverup. This same group has been heavily involved in the several other articles related to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Geogene ( talk) 17:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Coverup claims are fringey about nine times out of ten in my experience. That being said, toxicity claims may or may not be. Best suggestion is to review the sources. Are they reliable sources? Simonm223 ( talk) 18:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are degrees of toxicity. Claiming something is toxic in the sense that people should avoid exposure to something is one thing, and claiming it is toxic in the sense that we should "evacuate the Gulf Coast" is another. The sources used are truth-out.org, Al-Jazeera, Huffington Post, and Democracy Now. Nearly all of the weirdness is coming from one expert that the sources inverview, Riki Ott, who seems to say strange things quite often in relation to spill, elsewhere for example that genetically modified oil eating bacteria are attacking people. I don't normally have a problem with AJ and HuffPo, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, here science RS standards at least, medical RS standards probably. Geogene ( talk) 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hard to know from reading the article what the mainstream scientific viewpoint is, but the views of Hugh Kaufman and Riki Ott are clearly attributed as their own views, which is a step in the right direction. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If what AJ and HuffPo reported on was just what Ott said rather than any more substantial investigative work then referencing it as being Ott's claims would be a good way of handling that for sure. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would expect the mainstream viewpoint to be closer to that represented by the EPA, FDA, NOAA, and other government science agencies. Government "approval" doesn't necessarily guarantee good science, but these agencies have more supervision by the scientific community at large than individual activists and whistle-blowers, even when the latter are able to push themselves in front of a camera. This is the same reason I trust the CDC's advice on vaccination and not some celebrity, even when the media puts them in front of a camera. But I'm not sure how the policy here works in that regard. I understand that we're not arbiters of truth, just citers of "good enough" sources. Geogene ( talk) 20:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

At first glance I don't see anything that puts undue weight on a WP:FRINGE theory. Like I said, the coverup/conspiracy issue is adequately sourced, in-text attributed, and given appropriate weight. You may want to check each of the sources in the article and remove anything that isn't cited to a WP:RS. One thing I did notice is that every section of the article, no matter what its heading, addresses the "how toxic/how effective is Corexit" controversy. (Surely there's more to Corexit than this?) So, no fringe problem here, but the article may have NPOV issues that WP:NPOVN might be better equipped to address. By the way, what exactly is the view of the EPA, FDA, and NOAA? Have they specifically addressed criticisms, issued statements, etc.? Not being able to find this after a quick skim is a good sign the article needs a serious copyedit. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the review. The EPA did a comparison study between Corexit and alternative dispersants back in (I think) 2010, after they and the USCG found BP's response to their inquiries deficient. They found that they're all "generally" the same in terms of both toxicity and effectiveness, with some dispersants being more toxic to certain species than others. I would put that in and source it, but there's a cabal of editors that has been POV pushing (my opinion) these DH articles for years. I was just told by one on the BP talk page that the FDA and NOAA are both not reliable sources on the state of the Gulf fisheries or on food safety of Gulf seafood. I was also told that I'm too prolific and that my decision to edit the articles now is apparently very suspicious. That's good to know, I guess. Geogene ( talk) 21:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs please. Simonm223 ( talk) 23:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• At BP's talk page, on government sources, addressed to me: [11]
• At the Corexit talk page, more on government sources, to others: [12] Geogene ( talk) 00:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Another Corexit POV edit: [13] -- on the grounds that that editor did not seek consensus first.

And although I don't think the Money Times is necessarily a reliable source, this is what happens when material that isn't anti-Corexit finds its way into the Corexit article. [14]

And from the DH Oil Spill page diff showing my paragraph on the NIOSH study (which found dehydration and heat stress on workers, but no evidence of chemical exposure) being deleted from the article. [15]

My paragraph was removed because, according to the edit comment, I did not "seek consensus first".

The next edit by the same person restored my paragraph on the NIOSH study. Why was my edit blanked and then restored? According to the edit comment: "restored recently added bit about oil clean up workers health problems due to ozone rather than oil, per BP/USG". They liked the part where I mentioned NIOSH's suggestion of ozone exposure to the workers. That made it okay so they put in back in. This is POV pushing in my book. Geogene ( talk) 00:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

While this is a fringe theory noticeboard, there are some claims being made that, whilst having nothing to do with the topic here, need to be corrected.

Georgette has changed

• "In 2012, a study found that Corexit increases the toxicity of oil by 52 times."

• Gulf of Mexico clean-up makes 2010 spill 52-times more toxic
• Study: Mixing oil with dispersant made the BP oil spill worse
• Gulf of Mexico Clean-Up Makes 2010 Spill 52-Times More Toxic

to

• "In 2012, a study found that Corexit's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more bioavailable to planktonic animals, increasing their toxicity to plankton by up to 52 times."

Georgette also added the bit from NIOSH to the BP oil spill article, in which the government seems to blame the oil workers for not wearing protective gear, however it was not added that workers' jobs were threatened if they did wear masks or respirators.( NYT CNN)

The type of hyper-editingas seen by Georette's contributions in the past week or so, considered alongside the ongoing, multi-billion dollar court case which BP is fighting right now, which is focused specifically on the amount of environmental damage that was done, is troubling to say the least. Also my words are being taken out of context and misused here. I said that we don't necessarily take the words of government officials as RS, and I showed where they did indeed get busted trying to cover up news of the oil plumes at the height of the spill. So to quote an agency (NOAA) who was caught lying, and to say that it should trump Al Jazeera, is certainly going to be challenged. Ideally, there would be more help available at pages like this, when a high value trial is ongoing. The usual editors are pretty burned out at this point, FYI. petrarchan47 t c 01:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Geogene response:well, I'm not sure how you messed my name when it's right there in front of you, but I'm a "he".

Now, I'm concerned about these kneejerk accusations of COI: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], in which Petrarchan47 accuses pretty much anyone that disagrees with her of working for either the NSA or BP, or else insinuates that she and her friends are the only ones there for acceptable reasons. She was kind enough to repeat the accusation above. There's always "a court case", timing is always "suspicious"...I don't know if she is just naturally prone to that sort of thinking, or if she does this to try to run off editors that don't carry her point of view. Regardless, it's tedious, and I'm about ready to take it to the ANI, this is probably the last straw. Geogene ( talk) 02:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm proud of my work clarifying that the "increased toxicity by 52 times" applies specifically to plankton. Somehow Petra likes to leave out that part, even though they're the base of the food chain, and therefore important. Her remark about protective gear is also nonsense, the NIOSH report did not advise respirator use because they didn't find airborne contaminants exceeding acceptable levels. The protective equipment it mentions cleanup workers not using were gloves and coveralls. Geogene ( talk) 02:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's address the edits - you have just reverted the straight-forward Lede to a convoluted "toxic to plankton" with the edit summary "what are you doing?"

I would like to hear from someone how the best way to summarize this science would be.

• "In 2012, a study found that Corexit increases the toxicity of oil by 52 times."

• Gulf of Mexico clean-up makes 2010 spill 52-times more toxic
• Study: Mixing oil with dispersant made the BP oil spill worse
• Gulf of Mexico Clean-Up Makes 2010 Spill 52-Times More Toxic

For now, I am reverting it to sound more like the actual source. It seems more 'fringe' to rephrase "made the oil 52 times more toxic". Or POV pushing. But it certainly is not proper citing of sources. It also should make sense to question a new person coming in who is suddenly targeting the very issues BP is fighting in court, and to question one who holds the US government's word above independent reporters, especially when the USG is an involved party in the litigation. To detract from this activity by doing something like claiming that I need to go straight to an ANI is par for the course, in my experience. petrarchan47 t c 02:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting an impression of "environmental/political activism" vs. "here to build an encyclopedia". Whatever it is, you guys need help. This noticeboard isn't the place for it. Maybe dispute resolution or arbitration, but not here. Thanks. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate the third source didn't seem to specify Planktonic rotifers. However it was unambiguously about rotifers, not necessarily other organisms. Simonm223 ( talk) 02:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This source specifically mentions the mechanism of the increased toxicity (by splitting up the droplets and making them more bioavailable to small/micro-organisms) and mentions plankton specifically. http://www.livescience.com/25159-oil-dispersant-increases-toxicity.html I don't know if it's used in the Corexit article but I think it's in the main one. In any case...I agree with Louie. Geogene ( talk) 02:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Only source provided is a paper written by the owner of radhaz.com [27] - a purveyor of fine EmF fear based products. I've asked on talk a few times for contact with the author on notability but they've continued editing this article, and including links to it and RF based spyware on other radiation metering pages without engaging at all. If anyone thinks they can save this one, find some reliable sources for why this device is notable I'd love to see it - because my instinct is that there is a case for notability. But the article author didn't produce a case and I feel this would be better off at AfC. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How is this different from EMF_meter? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps a redirect. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Good redirect. bobrayner ( talk) 00:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirect is in place (good decision). Nothing to see here, move along, move along... - Guy Macon ( talk) 14:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Kumari Kandam has been heavily revised recently, and now contains original research, heavy use of someone named K.Appadurai, statements like "is probable" with no source, etc. See the talk page discussion. I must admit I haven't looked at this for a few days. I note for instance a new Satellite image claimed to resemble Mt Meru but with apparently no source. Dougweller ( talk) 19:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

My word but this is a messed up article. It doesn't follow Wikipedia style, it's FULL of WP:SYNTH and rides roughshod over WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policy. I'm making a few edits, but additional eyes would be helpful. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's it. I can't do no more. It's not perfect, but it's a heckuvalot better. If anyone else wants to take a crack be my guest. Simonm223 ( talk) 02:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This article has got some history, check the talk page. Most editors have agreed it should be redirected but it never was. I suggest a redirect to parapsychology. Goblin Face ( talk) 02:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered redirecting it to extrasensory perception? The skeptic’s dictionary seems to be suggesting that they are synonymous. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 04:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think redirecting to ESP makes more sense. Objections? jps ( talk) 21:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of redirecting it to Extrasensory Perception. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Extrasensory perception does not mention the term " anomalous cognition" so there is no basis for that in the article. Do you have a source that says that they are the same thing, or do you want to merge content? Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The source was the skeptic’s dictionary’s entry on anomalous cognition [ [28]]. Apparently “anomalous cognition” was an expression made up by SAIC to refer to ESP in the same way that “macroscopic random mechanical cascade” was an expression made up by PEAR to refer to a game of plinko. The creation of neologisms seems to be a common theme in parapsychology. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 01:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

See euphemism treadmill. jps ( talk) 04:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirected to Extrasensory perception. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WTF is this? I can't see any reliable sources being used, and it looks like woo. WP:AFD? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 14:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I know all about this subject and I think I have some references. I might be able to help. If not then probably a delete/merge. I will try and work on it later today. Goblin Face ( talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This article sounds very familiar. There is a lot of quackery on wikipedia with regards to EM fields and biology. I wonder if Harold Saxton Burr is notable? There is a bit of a rabbit whole related to this: The Secret Life of Plants, Plant perception (paranormal), Plant perception (physiology) etc, Second Quantization ( talk) 12:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting article title, pity I missed it. It looks fun. Second Quantization ( talk) 23:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Non notable fringe physicist. Can't find any reliable sources. Goblin Face ( talk) 11:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The stub that is there right now doesn't indicate WP:PROF notability. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

IP is deleting references from the article and deleting any mention that Parnia's work is parapsychology based. He's done this a number of times now. Goblin Face ( talk) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor deleted relevant text from Pseudoscience#Demographics section.

The source is published in BJP. This proposal lost interest because editors did not feel it is a useful reference for the proposed text. The source is relevant to the pseudoscience page and all the proposed text is supported by the published reliable reference.

• Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2011). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. 102 (3): 392–405. doi: 10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID  21751996.

Proposal

Proposal 1: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Demographics:

Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscientific examples can be found in practically any country. For example, the ' Keep libel laws out of science' campaign was launched in the UK in June 2009 after the science writer Simon Singh, who alerted the people about the lack of evidence to support chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Proposal 2: Restore text to WP:LEAD:

Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious matters that are a threat to public health.

Proposal 3: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Health and education implications:

Restore following sourced text: ==> Superstitions, beliefs that are irrational and usually involve cause-and-effect relationships that are not real, are categorized as pseudoscience and quackery. Quackery is a specific type of pseudoscience that alludes medical treatments. As many governmental and skeptical organizations are actively fighting against pseudoscience and related issues, their efforts to make the public aware of the scientific rigor required to make informed choices are not always as effective as anticipated to reduce the impact of pseudoscience.

Here is text from the source that shows the proposal is sourced.

The issue here is not a matter of WP:V or WP:RS because Matute is a good source for the article. WP:NPOV requires that the existing mainstream view is fairly represented. I checked the article history. This deleted relevant text from the article and this also deleted text that is related to demographics and to the article. _-Quack ^o Guru-_ 04:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be posted on the article's Talk page and just a link to it posted here? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Preferably with less formatting and more prose :| Second Quantization ( talk) 15:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Could use some eyes on it. I've reverted an IP's pov editing there twice. Dougweller ( talk) 21:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The user Hawol has been doing mass edits on this article for a few months. He/she has done some good work but most of the sources which have been added on the NDE (Fenwick, Greyson, Parnia, Lommel) etc all advocate a sort of mind-body dualism or a spiritual interpretation of the NDE, this is not the position held by the scientific consensus. There's now nearly 100 references on the article but less than 10 references in the skeptical section. The same user has also done mass edits to the Transpersonal psychology article. Like above has done some good work but in places deleted some critical references on the topic. I don't know what to suggest here, but the NDE article is completely unbalanced. Goblin Face ( talk) 03:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nearly all the sources added are newspapers, and quite old ones. Second Quantization ( talk) 11:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As an article this is a bit weird. Why does it exist at all, separate from near-death experience? Second Quantization ( talk) 12:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the articles need to distinguish NDE as a research area, and as a paranormal belief. I've forked content from NDE to Near-death_experience_(paranormal) as a result. Second Quantization ( talk) 12:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Near-death studies needs an afd. There's very little on there that isn't on the NDE article and some of the sources are unreliable. A redirect could be possible but I don't see any purpose of the article. Goblin Face ( talk) 19:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur a redirect to NDE page might be good but think we should seek a diversity of opinions before acting. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems unfortunately that creating that new article has backfired as users on the talk-page of the near-death experience are objecting. That's a secondary issue, the main issue is the near-death studies article it should be merged/redirected. Goblin Face ( talk) 23:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Struggling here to find any reliable sources. I thought a book review might turn up but so far have not been able to find anything. Any help would be appreciated. Goblin Face ( talk) 23:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to do here, according to his article he has published a lot of books but the article reads like an advertisement. Says he has been on the TV and has various media appearances but I can't seem to find any reliable sources. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean this guy? He's more or less notable, but his resume...I mean his article, needs some heavy editing. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't find many reference for him outside of parapsychology websites, some news coverage may be useful. Thanks. Goblin Face ( talk) 23:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Shag Harbour UFO incident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's up for AfD but there seems to be the minimal amount of newspaper coverage to satisfy notability. My concern is that the article contains huge sections of WP:OR and fringe conspiracy views given heavy undue weight. One especially conspiracy-minded section is sourced entirely to a book called Dark Object: The World's Only Government-Documented UFO Crash co-authored by Whitley Strieber. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm too tired to even deal with this right now. It's one of Canada's most significant "ufo" stories so it probably shouldn't be removed, but that article is messed up. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed a huge section of WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories cited to "Ledger & Styles" and the History Channel. It's a start. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is one of the most famous and best-known UFO cases in Canadian history, so it probably should remain in some form. The article is a disorganized mess, though 2602:304:691E:5A29:A5B3:4FBB:25F:E8A4 ( talk) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup on it. Needs more work. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A 2011 review of reviews: Ernst, E; et al. (2011). "Acupuncture: Does it alleviate pain and are there serious risks? A review of reviews". Pain. 152 (4): 755–64. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.004. PMID  21440191.

A 2013 systematic review: Bergqvist D (2013). "Vascular injuries caused by acupuncture. A systematic review". International Angiology. 32 (1): 1–8. PMID  23435388.

A 2011 systematic review: Ernst E, Zhang J (2011). "Cardiac tamponade caused by acupuncture: a review of the literature". Int J Cardiol. 16 (3): 287–289. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.10.016. PMID  21093944.

All above reviews are relevant to the article and obviously meets MEDRS. It is not undueweight because deaths after acupuncture are rare. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The current discussion is at Talk:Acupuncture#Removal of reviews. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a psychic but I can't find any notable or mainstream publications that mention him. The article has been a mess for years. I think afd would be appropriate. Let me know your thoughts. Goblin Face ( talk) 00:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD might not be the answer since his story is well known in Europe, and apparently still has a big following in Russia. Non-parapsychology references are difficult to come by for this guy, but here's a few I came across.

• Ebon, Martin, “Moscow’s ESP Dilemma”, pp. 42-43 in The Humanist, Sep-Oct 1977.
• Luckhurst, Roger, The Invention of Telepathy, 1870-1901, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Ostrander, Sheila & Lynn Schroeder, Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1971 (1970).
• Ostrander, Sheila & Lynn Schroeder (eds.) , The ESP Papers: Scientists Speak Out from Behind the Iron Curtain, New York: Bantam, 1976.
• Rosenthal, Bernice Glatzer (ed.), The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture, Ithaca / London: Cornell University Press, 1997.
• Zielinski, Ludmila, “Russia and Poland” Vol. III in Eric J. Dingwall (ed.), Abnormal Hypnotic Phenomena. A Survey of Nineteenth-Century Cases, London: J. & A. Churchill Ltd, 1968.

- LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Lynn Schroeder is a big psychic believer I did read her books about 10 years ago unfortunately she includes no critical or rational coverage in her books just accepts any reports of psychic ability as true lol, basically any report and she accept it at face value, have a watch of this documentary it claims Messing robbed a bank with his psychic powers, also features commentary from Schroeder [29]. Messing is notable but the sources are a problem. I would be interested in seeing the Roger Luckhurst reference I have read that book before but don't remember Messing in it. Thanks for the other sources I will try and dig them out. Goblin Face ( talk) 03:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP of a Scottish astronomer who expresses fringe theories about alien space probes, matter transfer accidents, and other unconventional opinions. Needs someone familiar with the subject to look it over. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Black Knight satellite

Related to above. It's up for AfD. Only non-fringe sources are Brian Dunning and an Irish planetarium's blog. Notable? Could be. Then again, maybe not. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how something could be notable on the basis of two SPS. Second Quantization ( talk) 21:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Valentich disappearance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's some insistence on presenting UFOlogists "findings" on an equal footing with DOT findings - cited to fringy sources like "Victorian UFO Research Society" as seen here (by an editor coincidentally named "vufors"). - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, a clear and continuing violation of WP:NPOV - presenting UFO-nonsense on an equal footing with reliably-sourced material. Needs watching. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is also some clear WP:OR in the article - citing primary sources (e.g. the National Archives of Australia) and drawing conclusions from them not made in secondary WP:RS. The article needs substantial work to comply with policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, because low-traffic fringe articles often become like remote desert islands cut off from the mainland. The natives there have never heard of WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and are willing to go to war to keep all views "equal". Two or three times now they have restored a duplicate section of the "Explanations by UFOlogists" section (which itself needs trimming) called "Other findings". I just removed it, [30] but it may not stick. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A little overreaction, I'd say. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Liable to backfire, I suspect. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Recently cleaned of OR cited to primary sources and reliable sources being misrepresented. Bears watching. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Has seen some heavy editing of late, especially to the lede. More eyes/views would be helpful. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 06:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Add) ... and is now mentioned on two other noticeboards: see WT:MED#Daniel Amen and WP:BLPN#More eyes on Daniel Amen. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 11:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Some people may want to take a look at this. It seems a bit off, especially this section and this addition. -- Calton | Talk 19:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Good spot. I've reverted to an earlier version before all the recent "improvements" which have been done to try and justify conspiratorial ideation using dodgy sources and OR, Second Quantization ( talk) 21:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Needs more eyes - the revert didn't stick. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It gets worse - it seems that the objective is to write a 'how to spot real conspiracies' manual, if the current WP:SPA is to be believed... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Been brewing for a while. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a few of them as examples of conspiracy theories that were laughed at but later confirmed but there needs to be solid, secondary sourcing on them. There were no sources in that section. Some were utter crap (see the laughable JFK one) others had small aspects confirmed but the editor threw in anything and everything related. I think someone is after WP:THETRUTH here. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I warned the editor as they are at 3RR from their reverts today (and possibly past it, but they hadn't been warned yet). Non template but fairly pointed. Suggest WP:EWN if they continue. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No conspiracy has ever been uncovered which was put forward by a conspiracy theorist or from conspiracy theory forums. Second Quantization ( talk) 14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned out the various "but conspiracies exist" arguments that seem to have migrated all over the article and tried to summarize and centralize them. I moved the discussion of RICO to a "legal use" section, but my feeling is that it's not relevant to the topic and should be removed, since AFAIK law enforcement and courts don't refer to evidence gathered to prosecute criminal organizations as conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

People may wish to weigh in at Talk:Ken_Ham#Editing_the_lead_without_discussion_here_first . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is currently locked pending consensus. As absurd as it seems consensus needs to be established that WP should assert the age of the Earth as a fact. Intelligent input (not design) might be helpful. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 04:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I see a fringe theory being pushed by a user across a number of articles related to North Korea. North Korea and its governing party are widely considered as hardline communist. North Korea has the most rigid socialist planned economy that is still left in the world.

Now, a user is making a long story in a number of articles asserting that North Korea is not 'actually communist' at all, but rather 'far-right' and 'fascist'. Examples: Juche#.22Socialism_without_Socialism.22, edit warring to remove 'socialism' from the infobox: [31], despite the fact that NK is officially socialist according to its constitution. The whole ideology section on Worker's Party of Korea only reflects the view that this party is not really communist. This is being done by range of selective quotations. The user concerned has cherrypicked two or three sources based on which he's pushing his fringe view in every article connected with North Korea.

I've tried to explain him numerous times the simple fact that most noncommunists consider North Korea as communist. Most communists similarly consider North Korea as communist. You only get 22,000 Google hits, most of those with little substance, when you google 'North Korea ″not communist″. When you Google 'North Korea Communist', you get no less than 17 million hits. What the user is pushing is a minority view within a minority. He has been criticized from both anticommunist (me) and pro-communist perspective ( [32]) for his pet theories, to no avail. Patent case of WP:FRINGE. Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 12:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• 1st, @ Lokalkosmopolit: I have not said that NK is not socialist... A socialist state is not socialism as an ideology, it refers to NK as a socialist as the socialist mode of production, read Socialism (Marxism), this is not an ideology....
• 2nd, I havn't added the Myers part in the article (was there before I edited)... Myers, Armstrong, Lankov, Becker etc are not fringe theorists but leadnig specialists on North Korea, hence they can't be fringist..
• 3rd, the article does not say if WPK or North Korea is not socialist, it doesn't even say if WPK is communist or not, it just says that the party is Juche, which is correct.. and Juche is, according to the North Koreans, as the embodiment of Korean socialism... Juche is socialism, but its clearly not socialism as Socialism (this article, which focuses on the socialist movement), but rather this article Socialism (Marxism) (but that socialism is not an ideology its a concept about a mode of production, being then entirely different).. At last, the section is called "Allegations" and "Criticism"... The Socialism article has a criticism section, the Social Democracy has a criticism section the Fascism article has a criticism and the capitalist article has a criticism section, why is North Korea treated differently?
• 4th, I have not said that North Korea is not communist, I don't care what North Korea is.. The only thing I've said is this, several scholars have listed hallmarks which they believe disqualify from calling North Korea communist.
• 5th, the view that North Korea is racist was uttered before Myers.
• 6th, the article of the Workers' Party of Korea does not say that WPK or North Korea is not communist socialist, it doesn't even mentions the subject. I've mentioned in the lead that WPK has removed references to "building a communist society" from the party Charter - but that is hard facts, not an opinion. I can't force the North Koreans to readd that sentence, can I?
• 7th, this is stupid - Lokalkosmopolit hasn't even bothered to read the article (I'm guessing, because his criticism don't make any sense at all) - if the article had said that NK or the WPK was not communist or socialist, I would have understood, but right now he's criticizing me because it doesn't say that WPK and North Korea is socialist/communist clearly enough - I'm just trying to walk a rope line between that NK is a hardline Stalinist state and its something else..
• 8th, at last, the Ideology section is not even finished, but it makes very clear that the Stalinist influences on WPK, even stating that leading WPK officials considered Stalinism as the only correct interpretation of Marxism, and stating that Kim Il-sung believed Stalinism to be the only correct path to reach communism... If this is saying that WPK and North KOrea is not communists, I don't know what does, should I write; NK and WPK MOST COMMUNIST PARTY-STATE in the world, in the lead, would that suffice? Because thats what they are calling for!....
• 9th, this is a stupid discussion, and should be closed down. -- TIAYN ( talk) 13:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Juche is socialism, but its clearly not socialism as Socialism? I fear that through a combination of hairsplitting and taking socialist theory at face value, we have now started counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. bobrayner ( talk) 16:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

[33] [34] [35] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Close, per WP:HOWMANYANGELS. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if you think a user is inserting scholasticism into articles then this is very serious violation of NPOV and the thread should definitely not be closed. No shooting the messenger! Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 18:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the position of Brian Reynolds Myers, that the DPRK is a racist, fascist state, is noteworthy. However, I think the problem is creating a false consensus around the opinions of Myers and people like him by a synthesis of cherrypicked quotations. (I don't think it is just TIAYN who is doing this.) I don't think the issue is just selectivity of sources, but selectivity in quoting those sources. As one example, I checked the citation of Bruce Cumings in the Juche article against his original text (Korea's Place in the Sun). Cumings writes:

the regime emerged within the bowels of Russian Red Army occupation and thus took its administrative and industrial structure from Soviet models (as did every socialist state in the period) [p 396].

and

They combined Lenin's program of national liberation and Stalin's autarky of socialism in one country... [p 397].

However, the citation of Cumings focuses on his comments about corporatism and Japanese fascism (from the same passage in the original text, though quoted from another source) and puts them under the heading "Socialism without Socialism". This gives the impression that Cumings agrees with Myers, which is false.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Jack Upland: Good point (and I finally understood what you ment).. I will look into this. -- TIAYN ( talk) 06:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, this is quoted by another source (Shin) and this source might be responsible for the misleading quotation.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

According to mystic seers, the characteristic blue haze seen in mountain canyons, currently attributed to Mie scattering-theory, is the most dense form of the Aether: the Chemical Ether. - Etheric plane.

The majority of modern physicists, in spite of acknowledging the phenomena known as vacuum energy and the existence of other unsolved problems in physics that are unexplained by current standard theories, continue to maintain that there is no need to imagine that a medium for propagation of electromagnetic waves exists [...] However, there have been a number of physicists in western countries whose research, currently considered fringe and controversial among the mainstream scientific community, shows evidence of the existence of the dynamic aether possessing a fluid crystal-like structure and permeating all space, in an apparent accordance with recent experiments and as formerly outlined by Theosophical and Rosicrucian esoteric schools. - Etheric plane

In contrast to Western secular modernist and post-modern thought, in occult and esoteric cosmology, thoughts and consciousness are not just a byproduct of brain functioning, but have their own objective and universal reality quite independent of the physical. - Mental plane

A teaching prevalent in the West is mathematics, which was greatly added to by Pythagoreanism and Philosophy (Platonism, Neoplatonism), the oldest non-mythic (besides Egyptian) Western wisdom teachings. Math once meant "magic" and is still important in occultism., especially topics farther beyond the earthly. Any mathematician who considers the mental plane's dimensionality equal to or more than the earthly one defines them as "hyperplanes." - Mental plane

...What the fuck? These are stating everything as factual.. they're claiming, explicitly, that science is wrong and they're right... and there's dozens of other articles in the categories these are from...

I'm genuinely horrified that this has been on Wikipedia so long... Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 09:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#MEAT at Vassula Ryden. Dougweller ( talk) 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Jabal al-Lawz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A fringe claim that this is Mt. Sinai seems to be dominating this page. I think we should remove it entirely, but thought I'd post here to get other opinions. jps ( talk) 11:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic consciousness.

Thoughts would be appreciated.

jps ( talk) 11:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ascended master (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

That's a pretty long article for not very much independent notice. It's hard for me to tell how much is original research and how much is well-documented dogma of the theosophists. Are there any experts in spiritualism that can have a crack at this?

jps ( talk) 12:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Transpersonal psychology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seemingly largely overlooked by this board, this article is rather unwieldy. There is evidence in the literature that this fringe field of psychology has adherents, but we desperately need independent sources to corroborate a lot of what appears to me to be soapboxing in the article. Compare to parapsychology which has a lot better neutral treatment.

jps ( talk) 12:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't get these articles at all. I realise they're minority religious beliefs, so, you know, just because I don't believe them doesn't mean they're unsuited for Wikipedia, but, at the same time, they don't explain terms, and are a word salad to the uninitiated. Anyone get these? Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 07:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fringe word salad triage: Does an article ramble on for pages, yet lacks independent-view third-party RS? Stub it down to only what such RS can support. Or tag it for improvement. Does an article present its ideas from the believers POV? Copyedits like "According to Rosicrucians..." and "Rosicrucians believe..." can provide immediate relief. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate outside input on whether we should mention the non-existent medical condition adrenal fatigue on this page, such as in this diff. Discussion on started on the talk page. Thank you. Yobol ( talk) 14:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese spirit possession (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to blur the line between a cultural concept and supernatural claims. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Enfield Monster‬ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SpongebobLawyerPants ( talk · contribs)

My impression is that this is non notable fringe nonsense, but since I've had some recent history with this user, I'd appreciate an independent evaluation. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree - it looks a lot like the space penguins article but with a slightly better drawing. However I was also involved in that debate so I probably don't constitute an independent evaluation. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

See my !vote at the Enfield Monster AfD. It's always worth doing a little bit of research first...  — SMALL JIM  14:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A google scholar hit for a journal article in 1978 that netted a total of four citations isn't the strongest indicator of notability ever. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that (though GS shows 10 citations here, not 4). But my point is that the assertion that there are no reliable sources for this phenomenon is easily disproved – this journal source, which was easily found, meets WP:IRS nicely. And this together with the other identified sources and the newspaper coverage, if it can be traced, are likely to be enough for WP:N.  — SMALL JIM  16:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Odd, I saw four citations with GS. Either way not a huge number. However frequently no citations means no citations right now. Remember that articles can be edited during an AfD and !votes can be changed. If somebody cares enough to save an article up for deletion and they demonstrate notability by changing the article accordingly that might change the outcome of the AfD discussion. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think all the references are unreliable. It looks like a hoax article. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite a long con if it includes two references from the 1970s. The event itself may well have been a prank, but the article itself isn't a hoax. -- McGeddon ( talk) 22:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Finally got around to cleaning out the non RS sources and giving the article a much needed copyedit [36]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Dover Demon

See also Dover Demon Simonm223 ( talk) 19:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about Dover Demon. OK, the article is shite, and it basically looks like whoever wrote it has 0 grasp of reality. However, it does seem to have spawned umpteen different language articles, which is something that normally only fairly notable subjects do. (unless the author is a polylinguist or at least has been crafty with Google translate) Barney the barney barney ( talk) 23:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say how notable the Dover Demon is, the only reliable source is the Boston Globe story. The rest are all 'mysterious mystery' exploitation books. I cleaned up the bombastic prose and the over reliance on Coleman as an "authority". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

One story in the Boston Globe isn't enough for notability. Itsmejudith ( talk) 07:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Tough to write an encyclopedic article on this. The objective source(s) merely report the sensational claims. Non-objective sources like Coleman dig a little deeper, but dismiss whatever doesn't fit the mystery angle. For example, Coleman found the teen who made the initial claim wrote scifi stories in his spare time, showed some talent as an artist, was described as a "troubled, frustrated kid", was part of a clique that included the other teen "witnesses", was a pot smoker (not that there's anything wrong with that), and later tended to embroider his story and play up to the press. Naturally, Coleman's analysis contends that all this is irrelevant. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If the globe's claims that it's gained "worldwide attention" can be substantiated, it's possibly notable. I think the 29 year gap between the event and the Globe story also helps. Note that, as with other cases I've tentatively "supported" in the past, I tend to use rough heuristics to guess whether the "benefit of the doubt" should be given to these sorts of cases - i.e. whether I support jumping straight to AfD (when I think that it's unlikely notability will be established) or tagging it with {{ notability}} for a few months first (when I think that it's possible that someone will find some reliable sources). With the Enfield Monster, I think probably it's the former case, with the Dover Demon, the Boston Globe story makes me think we should go with the latter strategy. 0x0077BE [ ^talk/ _contrib] 16:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't going to help much, but... I recall reading a couple of different books (one on cryptozoology, one a much broader book of the paranormal) which both discussed the Dover Demon in depth. Neither would count as reliable sources but they would probably go some way towards establishing notability. bobrayner ( talk) 17:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll note I'm not jumping up and down to AfD this one either. However I felt it fit a trend of articles edited by an IP editor who is passionate about cryptids that could probably do with a once over. Cheers. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Loveland frog

Loveland frog anyone? Sufficiently sourced? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 09:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for AfD. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 12:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a local legend misrepresented as a "humanoid cryptid". Cleaned up and added a news source. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and take a cruise through Infobox mythical creature: what links here sometime. Many of the "Grouping" and "Subgrouping" entries read like fan fiction. ‪Brosno dragon‬, for example. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note the discussion, at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Dreams from My Real Father, regarding the appropriate wording of the lede for the article Dreams from My Real Father, which discusses a film that claims Barack Obama's biological father was Frank Marshall Davis. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 23:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed some troubling POV editing on Aromatherapy by Dr. Cory Schultz. According to Google, this person is an 'E-natropath'. I'm going to have a go at cleaning this up later today. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 10:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been pretty much whitewashed with nothing indicating where the guys claims sit in response to the mainstream and in fact the "fringe" template has been removed from the talk page!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who added and removed the "Fringe Template" there was some discussion on the talk page as to the whys. I still am not happy with the article the way it is as I mentioned in the talk page there doesn't seem to be a lot of criticism specifically linking this guys beliefs and actual science. Any help in this you or others can provide to this page will be appreciated. In addition any help with finding WP:RS at Mark Hyman (doctor) will also be nice. I cannot find really much for either...ummmm... "Doctor" VViking _{Talk Edits} 07:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Research on meditation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I tried to be bold and redirect this mess to meditation, but there are certain folks sitting on it claiming it is full of important information. Still looks like a mess to me. Help stubbing out for a merge back to where it belongs would be appreciated.

jps ( talk) 11:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We need editors keeping an eye on these. Looks like there is going to be a campaign to have these articles reflect Osmanagic's views, see [37]. Dougweller ( talk) 06:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have two separate articles on this? Osmanagić is only notable for the claims about pyramids, and there are no other prominent supporters of those claims. bobrayner ( talk) 14:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Article on a fairly obscure fringe topic. Many of the reference links are to paranormal supporting sites. Seems in need of a cleanup. Graham1973 ( talk) 01:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done a partial cleanup, the article is now sectionated and all of the references have been changed to citation format with author information (even if only a log on name) where it was given. I'm not going to tackle the 'Further reading' section at this point. Graham1973 ( talk) 04:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Previously AfD'd and kept. Be interested to know if all those names of the alleged victims track back to a source, or if the article is just an OR magnet. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Twelve Holy Days (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should this article exist? jps ( talk) 12:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to get it deleted, but I do get some sense that it is a synthesis rather than a good picture of one coherent idea. Mangoe ( talk) 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Joseph A. Citro (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Appears to be a non notable author; the only coverage I could find of him was a couple of local stories in the Bangor, Maine newspaper. A walled garden of his various (likely not notable) works exists on Wikipedia:

• ‪Deus-X‬
• ‪Dark Twilight‬
• ‪Shadow Child (novel)‬
• ‪The Unseen (novel)‬
• ‪The Vermont Ghost Guide‬

AfD, or redirect to Bennington Triangle? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor has been at work lately creating & modifying:

• Ai Chi
• Aquatic therapy
• Aquajogging
• Bad Ragaz Ring Method
• Halliwick
• Healing Dance
• Massage#Watsu
• Waterdance
• Watsu

Many poorly-sourced links to the same domains. All/some of these probably need attention with an eye (at least) to WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 20:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The article on Trey Gowdy has misleading information when it makes mention of Trey Gowdy's award from a right-wing think tank in re the Affordable Care Act as "government-run" healthcare. I have tried to add a disclaimer that the ACA is not a 'government-run' healthcare system, but the editor of the page removes it by using the excuse that it is a quote. I am trying to bring clarity to the article by stating that there is disagreement as to the ACA being 'government-run'. The editor of this page continues to delete my entries because the misinformation is from a direct quote. I have backed up my entry by citing Factcheck. org.

There's no independent secondary source for the mention of his signature of the anti Affordable Care Act anyway. And the direct quote isn't necessary. You could just say "which proposes repealing the Affordable Care Act". Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User Ersby deleting skeptical references on the ganzfeld experiment claiming they are "POV". He's also done the same on the Charles Honorton article, instead re-placing reliable references with parapsychology journals. Goblin Face ( talk) 18:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate if some users could offer their opinion on the current debate on the ganzfeld experiment talk-page. A user is claiming Terence Hines comments are contradicted by other references, hence why he is deleting them. Goblin Face ( talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

New article needs help. Removed unreliable sources, but overly credulous prose needs to be checked against existing sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voronezh UFO incident -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Telephone hypnosis‬ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stumbled across this article in the new page feed. It seems to be filled with paranoid conspiracy claims - e.g. "Because telephone hypnosis is sometime undetectable by the patient, one way to detect it is to record your phone calls by using a suction microphone", or the removed "headhunters sometime use the technique of telephone hypnosis on job seekers". Is there a legitimate technique with this name (a cursory PubMed search didn't turn up anything) or is it unsalvageably fringe? Kolbasz ( talk) 23:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article and should be nominated for deletion at WP:AfD.

It also has other problems. Christian Counseling and Occultism: A Complete Guidebook to Occult isn't even close to being a reliable source. I believe it likely that Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis in Medicine, Dentistry, and Psychology says that you can hypnotize over the telephone, but I seriously doubt that it implies that telephone hypnosis is possible without the patient knowing that it is taking place. Likewise, I have no doubt that Having Twins: A Parent's Guide to Pregnancy, Birth and Early Childhood talks about hypnosis and childbirth, but I seriously doubt that it talks about telephone hypnosis. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Due to the scarcity of good sources, I think this is better dealt with in the Hypnosis article - could Telephone hypnosis redirect there? bobrayner ( talk) 10:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise this was up for discussion until I had already nominated for deletion via AfD. If there are no good sources then does it really deserve to be a search term? Flat Out let's discuss it 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Burzynski Clinic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My sinister agents tell me that the email campaign by the atroturfing group the ANP Coalition (run by a director of the clinic and his wife) is pressing its email campaign resulting in literally several emails to OTRS. The message is simple:

Email Wikipedia at; info-en-o@wikimedia.org and demand removal of the “Burzynski Clinic” webpage, since it has been high jacked by a paid group who identify themselves as “The Skeptics”, and is no longer open for public contribution. The Wikipedia page on “Burzynski Clinic” is filled with untrue statements, statements taken entirely out of context, cherry-picked information, sources that do not qualify as sources under Wikipedia rules, fake sources—you name it.

These claims are all, of course, false. The article is accurate, there is no evidence of paid advocacy outside the fevered imagination of Burzynski's propagandist Eric Merola (a Truther and general conspiracy believer who was art director on Zeitgeist: The Movie, directed by his brother Peter), the article is only semi protected.

Please add the article to your watchlists. Burzynski is trying the same tactics as he did in the 1990s: he's employing lobbyists, using parents of terminal children as cannon fodder to take his special pleading to anyone who will listen, and spinning like mad to try to cover up the long history of ethical violations and the absence of any credible evidence of effect.

It seems that two sources dominate in discussion: USA Today and Wikipedia. Our article is accurate, robustly sourced and comprehensive. They cannot fix USA Today (though they have tried), they will not give up on Wikipedia. Guy ( Help!) 15:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty electricity

A POV fork of Electromagnetic radiation and health. A product of the sock farm actively spreading electromagnetic radiation paranoia and pushing metering products. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, electrosmog. I did this: ASA adjudication on The Healthy House. Let me have a look-see. Guy ( Help!) 15:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Everyone see these:

• http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-responds-change-org-alt-med-alternative-medicine-cam/
• http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054

Do we need to change WP:FRINGE to reflect this? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 19:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that Jimbo stopped setting policy long ago (but his opinions are respected, same as any other editor with a track record of wise decisions), It looks to me like what he wrote already matches up with WP:FRINGE. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

New editor without a clue about our copyvio policies (I've deleted one article about Man: Whence, How and Whither which was just copyvio) creating new articles. See K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. Dougweller ( talk) 14:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Something weird going on here. Strikertype ( talk · contribs) turned up whitewashing the article three times claiming Radin wants his article deleted even though the article is well referenced. His last edit summary is threatening legal action. An afd has now been opened. Goblin Face ( talk) 13:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NLT? Ravensfire ( talk) 17:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To me, this newly created article looks ripe for deletion, but I'd like more experienced eyes on it. - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isogai dynamic therapy; nothing but alt-med websites and YouTube videos. Mangoe ( talk) 17:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Electromagnetic radiation meter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was previously discussed here and redirected to EMF meter. Now it's back, with two new articles Trifield meter and ‪RF meter‬ that duplicate it in some form. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Meterclassification ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Potentially some commercial activity/COI connected to this user. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Electronic harassment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP activity connecting this topic to the various metering devices. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Propose close: All of these have now been speedy deleted under Banned or Blocked user. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Electrosmog (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blatant tinfoil-hattery sourced to stuff like this and connected to a walled garden of related articles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrosmog (2nd nomination) - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

See also: Electronic harassment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Category:Electronic harassment - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
And: Dirty electricity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to be a number of SPA's active in creating/maintaining a cluster of articles with a slant toward tinfoil-hattery. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Faradaytent ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Emrhealth ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hynosisinfo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Meterclassification ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is Indian cia hughes network systems ( talk · contribs) related, or just coincidence? bobrayner ( talk) 18:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Presumably Texanpurls3453 ( talk · contribs) is related. bobrayner ( talk) 18:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And that leads to Dirtyelecto99 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The common theme is something about the evils of CF bulbs and EM radiation with a side order of cellphone spying and electronic harassment. If there's general agreement these could likely be socks of User:207.255.205.112 I'd file an SPI. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Now at SPI - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Daniel J. Benor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nice little advert we have going here. Can someone help make it a little less spammy?

jps ( talk) 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I stubbed it after going over all the sources and not finding any secondary sources about him nor any secondary sources verifying information about him. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

CSD A7 tag placed. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 04:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy was declined and now I've updated to a WP:BLPPROD. jps ( talk) 13:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

PROD declined and now I've updated to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Benor. jps ( talk) 22:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This article, created in 2007 by the same editor as ‎Isogai dynamic therapy (above) has obviously been below the radar in all this time. - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 16:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holistic kinesiology Similar to above. jps ( talk) 22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor is making unhelpful edits to the acupuncture article. He is removing images and creating a separate section for only two sentences. None of the edits improved the article. The current discussion is at Talk:Acupuncture#Misplaced text and deletion of images. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the first image because it's based on a speculative fringe theory that you're trying to promote. The second image is neither relevant nor necessary. - A1candidate ( talk)

Background information: There is a non-notable fringe article in mainspace. It barely survived AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials.

An editor is deleting sourced text without gaining consensus first. See Talk:German acupuncture trials#Proposal. See Talk:German acupuncture trials#Birch came back in.2C deleted again. For non-medical claims the Journal of traditional Chinese medicine is usable according to User:Alexbrn. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The sourced text is being deleted but the statements are not fringe. The statements are non-medicals claims. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

cute move, User:QuackGuru. Folks here, I work on a lot of controversial articles and hold the fort against FRINGE. What has happened on GERAC is that we had some pretty detailed conversations about 2 sources and eventually dismissed them both as failing WP:FRIND. One of them has content that QG loves - a statement that he cannot find anywhere else, and that is unsourced in the FRINGE article itself, that reimbursement was cancelled by some insurers on account of the GERAC trials. While QG is a valued fringe-fighter, he is mighty ax-grindy at times. The source is no good for anything, and this statement is as unfounded as the wacked-out statements in the source criticizing the way the trials were conducted. QG didn't participate in the detailed discussions - just waited til they were over, and snuck the source back in. Ugly and ax-grindy, like posting here without giving warning to me on my Talk page nor on the Talk page. phooey. Jytdog ( talk) 21:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC) (striking "wacked out" - too strong. sorry. Jytdog ( talk) 01:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC))

You think I snuck the source back in? An editor was editing in good faith to revert my deletion. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course you snuck the source back in. I'm sure this editor simply stumbled upon the article to revert you - A1candidate ( talk) 03:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think I snuck the source back in or do you think I reverted my edit. You still have failed to explain how non-medical claims not in the fringe space or somehow fringe. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I am also firmly on the side of conventional medicine and have little use for alternative medicine, but I agree with Jytdog's comment above. We all know that any article on alternative medicine will attract some editors who put advocacy above NPOV, but we also need to watch for skeptics who fall into the same mental trap. We all need to follow the sources, whether or not the sources support our POV. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who supports using the source. [38] There are more comments on the talk page. The original discussion resulted in consensus to include the source for the some insurers bit. See Talk:German acupuncture trials/Archive 1#Insurance companies in Germany have stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment.

For the statement that are not in the fringe space, it is however usable.

You said "We all need to follow the sources, whether or not the sources support our POV." But the edit by another editor is not following the sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are the only editor pushing a POV based on a fringe journal - A1candidate ( talk) 00:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Telling little fibs like "It barely survived AFD" or "I'm not the only editor who supports using the source" (with a diff [39] that specifically says that it is OK for non-controversial claims) really does not help. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

How about you tell me what this diff says. Do you think deleting the text is not following the sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We use mainstream academic journals, not fringe publications like the one you're advocating for. - A1candidate ( talk) 00:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a controversial claim, and I for one want to see a reliable source for it. I am not asking for a source that meets the higher standard needed for medical claims. I am asking for a bog standard reliable source that is needed for any ordinary claim. Why can't you find any other evidence that the claim is true? Perhaps it isn't true? It certainly is not verifiable in any reliable source that I have seen. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a fringe journal, so only usable for mundane claims. Since the insurance claim seems like its a controversial one, best to get some corroborating or alternative RS if this claim is to be included in the article. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 06:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed some poorly sourced material from Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - sourced only to a fringe publication, no discussion in reliable sources, no evidence the author is the expert he's claimed to be (which wouldn't override WP:UNDUE as you'd have to shown him significantly mentioned in reliable sources). Surprise, User:Til Eulenspiegel reverted me crying censorship. Dougweller ( talk) 13:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've raised the COI edits by this fringe author at WP:COIN#User Louise Goueffic. Dougweller ( talk) 18:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Howdy WP:FRINGE fans. Consistent with my want to create/improve articles for all sorts of bizarre Christian paraphernalia (see Gospel of Jesus' wife and Catacomb saints for example), I have today created an article for the Chalice of Doña Urraca. This particular cup already has an article on the Spanish Wikipedia (has had since 2009) and seemed notable enough to justify the effort. Add to that, late last month some local Spanish historians published a book claiming the chalice was, in fact, the true Holy Grail. The chalice's post-12th century provenance is well-established and extensively documented (it basically hasn't moved for the better part of 800 years). But the Grail claim is new, disputed and possibly a fringe theory. Well-referenced additions and more eyes would be welcome. Stalwart 111 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Need eyes on Water fluoridation controversy and Fluoridation by country as a new editor has been making some edits that appear to be slanted against water fluoridation. Thanks! Yobol ( talk) 18:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

And now spreading to Water fluoridation. Yobol ( talk) 20:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Physics pseudoscience:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Douglas Cotton

User talk:Douglas Cotton#Areas of expertise,

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Greenhouse effect,

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Venus.

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, but there's no realistic way he can keep editing his pet topics if he doesn't learn to accept guidance on policy. Guy ( Help!) 08:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm almost afraid, but should we point him to Wikiversity? This seems right up their alley. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Wikiversity's stated objective is to provide 'educational resources'. That they often fail to exercise the necessary discrimination to do so appropriately is no reason to encourage people to make the situation worse. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Citizendium. They'll take any sort of fringe. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 16:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting reactions at User talk:Douglas Cotton#Areas of expertise. Some psychologist should write up a paper about this and similar situations o Wikipedia. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone did, but the paper is only 24 words long. See rule #10. MastCell  ^Talk 17:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does this fall in the "legit" scale?

• [40]
• [41]
• [42]

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere out in the Rupert Sheldrake domain. That's the camp, anyway. jps ( talk) 12:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Signature in the Cell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Help fix this thing.

jps ( talk) 22:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this a notable book? Just because Tom Nagel nominates it for book of the year and the Times Literary Supplement notices, does that make your book notable? WP:BK is not clear to me. jps ( talk) 12:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Could some experienced editor(s) have a look & assess claims/notability & suitability for deletion? Article moved from AFC into mainspace (had been previously declined) by an editor, Rcruzmedia, who was later blocked for promo editing & socking. Article claims it is an "body-mind-spirit therapy developed and clinically tested " by an Australian natural therapist, and can have rapid results by freeing up subtle energy blocks..or somesuch bollocks.Sources are offline print media, one of them references a Good Medicine Magazine which is also the name of a legit looking US mag but I do not think they are the same publication as the author of the reference article seems to contribute to Oz-based media on subjects such as chakradancing and also shows up in google searched to Australian Natural Health Magazine (currently offline). regards 94.195.46.224 ( talk) 01:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if it is the same magazine, I don't think the non-peer reviewed magazine of a vegan advocacy organization qualifies as a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. Besides a book written by the technique's inventor, the only other cited source is a defunct New Age magazine, which definitely isn't one. As for notability, Google gets just 3000 hits for "horstmann technique" and 600 for "horstmann system". I say this should go to AfD. Kolbasz ( talk) 14:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Could you send it to deletion, as an ip anon opening a debate isn't so straightforward. regards 94.195.46.224 ( talk) 13:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Taken to AfD. Kolbasz ( talk) 10:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater and Man: whence, how and whither, a record of clairvoyant investigation. Full of plagiarism, perhaps some copyvio but hard to check. Poor articles and pov. Dougweller ( talk) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of Man:whence etc as off-topic discussion of the concepts of the book. If anyone can look at K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater and see if that's been done there it would be great. I tried but wasn't sure. Dougweller ( talk) 14:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Doppelgänger (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A remnant of Wikiproject paranormal, looks like its written by people who wanted to believe. The section "Notable documented doppelgänger experiences" is especially fun. A few possible merge targets. Also up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doppelgänger. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD was "Keep" so WP:OR and cruft cleanup done. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a new frontier in obfuscation.

Help would be appreciated.

jps ( talk) 18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to follow the advice found in WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT rather than edit warring. You made a WP:Bold change to wording that was arrived at through a lot of discussion and consensus-building. Two editors have reverted you. Stop edit warring, take it to the talk page. and make your case.

And no, the age of the earth is not "measured". It is derived from measurements. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The age of the earth is measured inasmuch as anything is measured. Those who deny this are essentially full of shit. jps ( talk) 19:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Essentially. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 20:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(Note: I am on the science side, as anyone who knows me will attest. That doesn't mean that I have to accept bad arguments just because I agree with the conclusion.)

Seriously? that's your best argument? Namecalling? Let's see, we measure weight with a scale. We measure length with a ruler. We measure voltage with a voltmeter. We measure duration with a stopwatch. What instrument do we use to measure the age of the earth? Could you upload a photo of the display? Calibrating the instrument must be a real bitch... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

We measure the Age of the Earth with radiometric dating. jps ( talk) 23:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's just the old confabulation of science with pseudoscience. Hard to believe it still happens with these articles.

Are full article protections and arbcom enforcement notices still the solution? -- Ronz ( talk) 20:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? You actually think that

"The scientific consensus is that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago."

is confabulating science with pseudoscience? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is this just is an example of the type of straw man argument that the creationists use? What does it have to do with the discussion here? -- Ronz ( talk) 21:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't see what the exact wording of the passage that jps tried to replace with some bullshit about measurements has to do with the discussion here? That's the passage that you yourself labeled "just the old confabulation of science with pseudoscience". Did you not bother to read it before characterizing it as pseudoscience? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone once said, "Seriously? that's your best argument? Namecalling?" WP:GANDER must be fairly tasty. The age of the Earth is measured. No one disputes that but this idiosyncratic Wikipedia user named Guy Macon. And a couple of creationists besides. jps ( talk) 01:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is needless attribution to scientific consensus. We can simply WP:ASSERT that "The universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago." jps ( talk) 23:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. So why didn't you edit the page to say the above instead of inserting a steaming pile of crap dubious and unsourced claim about the age of the earth being a measurement? The 4.5 billion year age of the earth is science. Measurements are engineering. You don't just hook up an age meter to the earth and directly measure the age. Nor would that be desirable if it were possible. Science gives us a solid 4.5 billion years answer. Engineering might not. If your imaginary age meter existed it might tell you that the earth is far younger than that -- if the engineer took the measurement in Hawaii. The actual scientific evidence is overwhelming. You don't have to insert lies. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Your argumentative post is almost meaningless in its torturous and counterfactual hairsplitting. The determination of the age of the Earth is a measurement of the age of the Earth -- end of story. Meaningless distinctions between science and engineering in this context are just that. We aren't talking about the age of Hawaii here (which also can be measured). We're talking about the age of the Earth. Much like I'm not talking about the age of your fingernail when I'm talking about the age of you. Do try to keep up. jps ( talk) 01:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Guy, although it seems to me that the argument is over edit summaries &c. rather than the article content. As I see it, there’s a chain of inference involved, beginning with the output from a mass spectrometer or whatever—the direct measurement—and proceeding from there through the ratio of isotopes and the mineralogical scenario they indicate for the origin of certain rocks, to the conclusion about the history of the planet in the context of theories from various disciplines (including radiochemistry, geology, & cosmology). I don’t think it’s hair-splitting to distinguish between observations and the conclusions made from them, even if the boundary is not sharp because of the ‘dialectic’ through which they interact. (The Measurement article, being concerned mainly with dimensions, units & precision AFAICT, offers little insight into the distinct roles of observation & inference in the process.) Anyway, the article originally said “measurements show” the earth to be 4.5 Ga old, without claiming that the age had been directly measured, so I don’t find this discussion very relevant to the edits in question.— Odysseus 147 9 03:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Another fantastically ignorant comment. The "‘dialectic’ through which they interact"? Seriously? Take a science class, please. The age of the Earth has been as directly measured as essentially any other quantity that can be measured. If you cannot understand how that is so, you probably ought not to be sticking your nose in these conversations. WP:COMPETENCE and all that. jps ( talk) 06:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that it is time to stop responding to jps. Dealing with someone who thinks that scientific questions are resolved by insults and bullying is boring, and his block log makes it clear that he is ineducable. It is a shame that he decided to bring his circus to the creationism pages, because his tactics are pretty much the same ones used by a certain class of young-earth creationist. The creationism pages need calm, logical editors who stay focused on the science.

For my part I apologize for responding on his level, and have stricken those portions of my comments. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to engage in "scientific questions". Any tension experienced at this website is due to questions of how to present facts and opinions. The general problem with creationism is a larger contingent of people uncomfortable stating certain facts in the context of how they may be offensive to others' religious beliefs. I encourage those editors who see the problem to help in small or large ways. jps ( talk) 12:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

jps is talking utter rubbish that the diff he links to at the top is some sort of "obfuscation". Of course creation science is a "field of study", just as religion is. His suggestion on the article talk page that there were actual errors in the version of the article that has remained stable for some weeks has not be backed up at all. I am totally with Guy Macon that creationism articles require a gentler hand than either jps several other editors here seem capable of providing.

The current version of the article is largely sound, however, thanks to the efforts of User:Jojalozzo and User:Gandalf61, and is also essentially identical to the version that jps is complaining about except for the addition of the overused "pseudoscientific" taunt and scare quotes.

The problem appears to be certain editors who can't even contemplate trying to simply express the view of creationists and then explaining why their views are wrong. Instead, they see a creationist viewpoint and have to complicate it by adding in the rejoinders immediately there and then. It leads to clumsy prose and the introduction of too many repeated words signifying nothing.

In other words, can anyone explain to me how creationists say X, which is wrong, and do Y, which is wrong. Science says X and Y are wrong is in any way better or "less obfuscated" than a simple statement along the lines of creationists say X and do Y. Science says X and Y are wrong? This is essentially all this argument boils down to. GDallimore ( Talk) 14:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Science" doesn't "say" anything. Creationists believe X. This is in contradiction to the fact of Y. That's the most neutral way to write it. Not everything is a debate. jps ( talk) 14:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with jps about how we should describe it neutrally. Saying creationists say X and do Y. Science says X and Y are wrong is giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE views as if religious nutjobs were equally prepared to discuss science as actual scientists.

PD: the age of the Earth is measured the exact same way the weight of an apple is. Every measure is indirect to a degree, even those simple enough to be made with a ruler. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with jps in that using some form of the word "measure" would be simpler and more suitable for the lede of an article, where we should be introducing and briefly summarizing, rather than giving extensive details.

I've got to observe that the problems of incivility and focusing on editors rather than content remains such a disruptive force still. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother going into more detail on this, but note that the current lead of YEC summarising the creation science part of the article was pretty much in keeping with the lead of the creation science article. Is this whole argument not taking place at the wrong article if jps, ronz and various others have a problem with even mentioning the beliefs of creationists? I'm struggling to understand how any fringe article can ever be written if it's contrary to the fringe guidelines to even quote the beliefs of a fringe group... GDallimore ( Talk) 18:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No one is opposed to explaining what creationists believe. I am opposed to claims that the measurements of the age of the Earth, etc. are merely the "opinions" of the scientific community rather than measurements. jps ( talk) 18:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate about whether or not the age of the Earth can be measured. So out of curiosity, can you or I measure the age of the Earth ourselves and see what we get? Or can it only be measured by the people who have one of these (see picture)? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 18:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Depends on how accurate and how precise you want your measurement to be. jps ( talk) 18:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone invented a new kind of mass spectrometer that has a display labeled "years", that instrument measures percentages of isotopes. A scientist can start with that measurement, take some other measurements to determine the half life of the isotopes, make some educated assumptions (based on physics) about the isotope ratio the rock started with and whether they migrated over time (unlikely with uranium or lead, quite possible with argon), and finally derive (derive, not measure) the age of the rock. Now all of this is bog-standard science, and there really aren't any ways that it could go wrong without it being detected, so any young-earth creationists reading this should abandon any hope that I am going to say that the derived answer might be wrong enough to support an earth that is thousands instead of billion of years old, but on the other hand we are not being honest if we pretend that a mass spectrometer measures the age of the earth instead of measuring amounts of isotopes.

You may have noticed that I said that we can derive the age of the rock. not the age of the earth. All rocks are younger than the earth, because the earth was once molten. It does set a lower bound, though; the earth is not younger than the oldest rocks. I would also mention that there are actual measurements that refute young-earth creationism. We can directly measure (by counting the yearly varves) the age of the Green River Formation. That's a direct measurement showing that a lake existed for six million years. Of course the young-earth creationists, always looking for an out, postulate some magical mechanism that can lay down six million thin layers over a 65,000 square kilometer area at a rate several per minute... My point is that, with so much solid scientific evidence, there is no need to make up lies about being able to measure the age of the earth with some mythical AgeOfEarthMeter.

(Note: any response by jps will be ignored.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignore him all you like, the edit he reverted was crap.

Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationists starting with Henry M. Morris have worked to develop the field of creation science in an effort to demonstrate that there is scientific evidence supporting their religiously founded belief in a supernatural creation. However, Young Earth creationism is contradicted by the scientific evidence derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines. The scientific consensus is that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago.[ref name="IAPStatement" /][ref name="McLean" /]

v.s

Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationists starting with Henry M. Morris have invented and promoted what they call " creation science" to support their religiously founded belief in a supernatural creation using pseudoscientific argumentation. [43] The basic tenets of Young Earth creationism are flatly contradicted by the scientific evidence derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines. The measurements show that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago.[ref name="IAPStatement"][ref name="McLean" /]

The first is completely unacceptable whether or not the age is directly or indirectly measured, because they didn't "develop the field" of creation science, they merely rebranded existing nonsense in order to try to do an end-run around the US Constitution. And since the the cdesign proponentsists have rebranded it again, and it's still the same shit with a different name. Guy ( Help!) 20:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The first one gets about a dozen things wrong and one thing right. The second gets those dozen things right but introduces one thing that is wrong. If I had to choose between the two I would choose the second, but why should I when we can have an article that gets all of those things right? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

But, of course, this being Wikipedia, we can do (c) which is to remove or fix the wrong thing :-) And that seems to be what's happening. This looks rather like a case of two people competing to own the same article. Guy ( Help!) 09:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon, isn't that just the difference between direct measurement and indirect measurement? E.g., astronomers measure our distance from stars indirectly, not directly [44]. Couldn't we similarly say that geologists measure the age of the Earth indirectly? (By the way, whenever I read your name I think of The Baby of Mâcon, which is one of my favourite films). -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 21:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Better that than Macon County Line... (smile) Star distance is an interesting example. I would consider parallax to be a measurement of star distance -- figuring out the height of a triangle from the angles is just straight calculation. But of course parallax doesn't work on extremely distant objects. Red shift distance measurement is definitely getting away from "measured" and well into "derived". You can't just assume that a redshift is the result of the Doppler effect. You have to rule out gravitational redshift, and for far-distant objects you have to take into account how much spacetime is curved, and general relativity and frame transformations can enter the picture. Even pulsar timing vs. magnitude distance measurements need to consider whether gravitational lensing is throwing off the magnitude measurements. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is all plainly Guy Macon's original research. Worse than that, it has no bearing on how these measurements actually occur. It's a false dichotomy between "derived" and "direct" measurements. And it's a sad one because the creationists seem to have adopted it as their pet too. jps ( talk) 21:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We could equally say that these determinations are models, or hypotheses, or calculations. The WP:RS in this particular area prefers "calculate" and I don't see any reason our preferences here should override that. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 21:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are based on these things, but the "RS" determination below is rather flawed because of the history of the subject. jps ( talk) 21:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate if that's the case. I'm seeing "measure the age of the earth" occurs with "Ussher" 18/67=38% of the time, and "calculate the age of the earth" occurs with "Ussher" 47/145=32% of the time. For number this small, that's a wash. For both terms, in most cases, Ussher is mention as part of the prehistory of geology in works written by geologists. I have access to most of the scholarly literature in this area. If you would find a more formal survey convincing, let me know and we can discuss the parameters. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor All measurements occur within the context of models, and all measurements are at some level hypotheses. However, there's usual a per-domain understanding as to what is commonly known as a "measurement" versus calculation, modeling, or derivation. With the several caveats of ghits very much in mind, here's a few counts from google scholar:

• 145: "calculate the age of the earth"

41: "the age of the earth * calculated"

• 67: "measure ... "

14: "... measured"

• 4: "derive ..."

13: "... derived"

• 2: "model ..."

0: "... modeled"

Based on this, I prefer "calculate". Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 20:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Calculate works for me. -- Guy Macon ( talk)

I find this to be suffering from small number statistics and a severe selection bias. In particular, the reason that "calculate the age of the Earth" is so common is because of the history of the subject. In particular, both Lord Kelvin and Bishop Ussher famously calculated the age of the Earth . Of course, neither of these "calculations" (both now known to be erroneous, but both to some extent championed by creationists) are relevant to the discussion at hand as to how exactly we know the age of the Earth (via measuring it!). You'd have to go through each citation and show they weren't discussing those fascinating side questions to have anything like a convincing argument. jps ( talk) 21:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Google scholar gives you a snipped view of each. Here are the first few:

• "Conversely, if these two initial Pb ratios are considered as representative of a primitive closed-system mantle, we can use them to calculate the age of the earth...."
• "It was also apparent that if the Manitouwadge galena were assigned an age of 2600 million years, and if this value were used to calculate the age of the earth, an age of more than 4550 million years would be obtained.
• "in the nineteenth century In the 1800s and the early 1900s there were four principal methods used to calculate the age of the Earth and solar system. These included thermal calculations..."
• Virtually none of the naturalists applied Lyell's notion to calculate the age of the earth's features; the data on geological processes were just too meager.
• Sir William has used the new physics of thermodynamics and his powerful mathematical skills to calculate the age of the earth.

You are correct in that Ussher is mentioned in several of these works, but that's not surprising as Ussher is part of the prehistory of this field (e.g., see Dalrymple's classic The Age of the Earth, p. 23). If you would like me to go through and determine how few of these only deal with the prehistory, I'd be happy to do so if you would find the results convincing. Alternatively, you could tell us how you went about determining that "calculate" is not the term preferred by geologists. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 22:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything about "preferred" terms. I just pointed out the obvious problem. There are often calculations that get done in the context of measurements, true, but there are many examples of calculations being done that are entirely erroneous. That's the problem. jps ( talk) 22:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm discussing whether the article should use "measure" or "calculate". I've shown, to a first approximation, that the more common term in the scholarly literature is "calculate". If you have a different methodology that gives us a better insight in the literature, let's hear it. If you think that we shouldn't follow WP:RS in this instance, I'm happy to hear your argument for that as well. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 22:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Calculate is fine by me, too. Who are the remaining objectors to this? Guy ( Help!) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the above literature survey, I withdraw my "derive" suggestion. "Calculate" is clearly better. As for remaining objectors. I would very much like to hear from the editor who reverted it to "measure" multiple times. Will a change to "calculate" also be reverted? If so we should discuss it rather than edit warring. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Two very bad articles that contained considerable copyvio (hers may still have some). They both need work. I was at first considering combining them but I'm not sure. A better choice might be to rename the Niscence article to Ann Ree Colton Foundation of Niscience, a redirect I first considered, because of sources such as [45] and much more importantly the book Under the Influence by John Goldhammer: [46] "From 1976 to 1990, I was a member of a religious group (the Ann Ree Colton Foundation of Niscience) that combined fundamentalist Christianity, Eastern mysticism, and New Age metaphysics. As a board member, lay minister, and volunteer, I did extensive pastoral counseling and researched the major world religions, philosophy, and psychology. I participated in and organized numerous conclaves, gave hundreds of public talks and conducted a lot of workshops and seminars across the U.S. I became utterly consumed by the Niscience System and its claim to be "the" highest truth and "the" spiritual path for our time." "I found it necessary to terminate my association with the group in 1990 due to their movement toward increasingly rigid and oppressive formats, rituals, and mind-control techniques--away from an emphasis on research and study of different religions and philosophies. By the way, leaving a group where I had invested so much of my life was incredibly difficult! I was feeling suicidal and lost. The organization had deteriorated into a destructive, full-blown religious cult". I've rewritten Niscience a bit, not enough and what I did do could use work. Dougweller ( talk) 16:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had someone complain that I've removed material. What I removed was either unsourced material in the lead or copyvio. I've also just remove some stuff stating in Wikipedia's own voice that she had telepathic abilities. Dougweller ( talk) 08:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page of the Ann Ree Colton article. It is essentially unsourced and should be cut to a stub with only verifiable facts. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 17:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A host of sock / meat puppets are appearing attempting to white-wash the fringe Young Earth Creationist claims. Additional eyes welcome. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A "host"? I'm seeing Special:Contributions/67.172.123.219 from Roseville, California, and Special:Contributions/184.151.61.231 from Kitchener, Ontario, but not much action. Binksternet ( talk) 00:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

‪Erlendur Haraldsson‬ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BLP of an Icelandic academic may be being used to promote fringy claims of reincarnation. I haven't delved too deeply into this article, but at first glance, the sourcing appears over-weighted towards WP:FRINGE venues and the subject's own writings. The article knits together his attempts at "psychological explanations for children who speak of past-life experiences" published in a couple of mainstream journals with his credulous claims of psychic communications, micro-PK and "reincarnation cases" published in fringe journals such as Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, and Journal of Scientific Exploration as if they are one in the same. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be worth an afd, but redirecting the name to reincarnation research where his name is already mentioned. I have one reliable source that mentions some of his work (A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology) but it only mentions his work on a few pages. I don't think there's enough reliable references to keep the article, basically all the references are from his own paranormal papers. Goblin Face ( talk) 20:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe, I do not get it. Half of the world believes in reincarnation. I think this is general problem with WP:Fringe when the scientific meets the religious then the there is a problem which policy applies. Either the policy of neutrally describing religious beliefs and practices with some criticism or wp:fringe. Andries ( talk) 14:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Haraldsson is looking at reincarnation from a scientific point of view. Nothing to do with the religious belief. Dougweller ( talk) 14:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense. Thanks. Andries ( talk) 18:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I added the BLP Primary tag and a comment on the talk page. The content doesn't belong in WP unless it is considered important in the field, this needs support and discussion in 3rd party independent reliable sources. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Related article: Indriði Indriðason. Talk page discussion of problems with the article presenting the material too credulously, over-reliance on one source, etc. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erlendur Haraldsson Goblin Face ( talk) 09:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Terrible abuse of military/government power, conspiracy theory, or both? Whatever, the sourcing in the current article is decidedly iffy ... Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 19:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a POV fork of Project 112. I cleaned up the unsourced or badly-sourced soapboxing and recommend a merge/redirect to Project 112.- LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

John Hartnett (physicist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An interesting case where CV-style promotionalism seems to dominate over the actual notability of the person. Hartnett is not particularly known for his contributions outside of creationism, and yet his credentials are somewhat trumpeted in the lede. Not sure how to handle the situation, though. Help!

jps ( talk) 13:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably the easiest solution would be to simply remove the credentials-trumpeting material from the lede, and insert it toward the end of the Research Interests section, hopefully in a less boastful way. I'll do it (eventually!), if you wish. jxm ( talk) 20:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I do so wish. I tried to figure it out myself but was unable. jps ( talk) 10:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Needs a cleanup. The section about the controversy with Randi particularly needs work. Dougweller ( talk) 13:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmospheric beast (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor James Constable

Carl Sagan once offhandedly used the phrase "atmospheric beast" on an episode of Cosmos to muse about the possibility of life on gas giants like Jupiter. An obscure author named Trevor James Constable had some ideas about creatures living in Earth's atmosphere. Neither of these topics has attracted any in depth coverage by independent and reliable (read: non-UFO, non-Forteana) sources to warrant having their own articles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Narconon now NPOV and should the POV banner therefore be removed? Talk:Narconon#NPOV? 78.86.131.23 ( talk) 10:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)  Done thanks. Guy ( Help!) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Deepak Chopra#Chopra Media Representative

This section may be of interest to watchers of this noticeboard.

jps ( talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Baraminology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've mentioned this article on this board before, but it really is absolutely atrocious. Much of it reads like Of Pandas and People. Can we try to align it with policies please? Can we try not to allow this kind of soapboxing?

jps ( talk) 14:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a version way back in history that I worked on back before I lost my old account. It was sourced, used major papers, and, while it might've had a lot of deadlinks by now, was completely within WP:FRINGE. I think I might just revert back to it. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 01:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. There might be some salvageable text in the former version, but... Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 01:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of the neologism sections, but this version is a marked improvement over what was there before. jps ( talk) 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Think those were what was there before I had stepped in. They could readily be cut down, but they're somewhat useful for an intentionally obfuscatory field. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 01:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this journal a generally reliable source for altmed topics, or does it fall afoul of WP:FRIND? The specific content I have in mind is in the Traditional Chinese Medicine article: "A 2012 review found curcumin has an important role in treating diabetes" sourced to PMC 3857752 (and since removed by another editor). I note this journal is not always positive toward altmed topics. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 08:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this journal is that it charges authors to publish, which introduces a conflict of interest in editorial policy. Much of the material published in the journal is the standard SCAM fare of small-scale studies that show often marginally significant results for interventions with no remotely plausible theoretical basis. And of course negative results are much less likely to get published (who would pay to publish a result that undermines their beliefs?) and most published research studies are wrong anyway. A claim as bold as that, requires a substantially better source. If curcumin genuinely does have a clinically relevant effect on diabetes, it will be in one of the major endocrinology journals. Guy ( Help!) 18:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this the journal that published that terribly designed pyramid power study? And other assorted studies so fringe as to kill its credibility? Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 16:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Peter Deunov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paneurhythmy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quite a few issues ... Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 06:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Deunov for starters. Guy ( Help!) 08:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Creationist cosmologies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this a violation of WP:SYNTH? Should this article be deleted?

jps ( talk) 16:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies. It's time to rid ourselves of this, I think. jps ( talk) 12:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation geophysics. In the same vein. jps ( talk) 13:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

99.22.189.113 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently added a post to the talk page, claiming "Much of this article is out-of-date with more recent information about Xenu (which, btw, now is spelled Zenu with a backward "z"). It is now known that Xenu is the same being as Satan from the Hebrew scriptures. It won't be easy to verify this, but talk to User:average64 if more info is desired".

User:average64 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) hasn't edited since 2013, and never the Xenu article. Can this information be verified? -- Auric talk 14:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

List of reportedly haunted locations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has some very dubious sources, and it is being used as a rationale to add Category:Reportedly haunted locations to locations in the list whose articles do not mention haunting, eg Giza Necropolis, Valley of the Kings and Great Wall of China. I've removed it from the first to and someone removed it from the 3rd but was reverted. Two issues really, one is cleaning up the list, the second adding categories about things that aren't mentioned in the article. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Dougweller Thanks for bringing this up. The user who added the category to Great Wall of China cites as a reference a link to about.com, which I don't think is a reliable source. There is no mention of haunting in the article and the three or four editors who are major contributors to it (including me EDIT: Sorry, here I am referring to the History of the Great Wall of China but that doesn't affect the fundamental argument) did not consider it worth mentioning. Not sure where we go from here. ► Philg88 ◄ ^{♦ talk} 11:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And despite two editors disagreeing with him, he's saying that he has the right to do it as WP:REF " nowhere states that the reference needs to be in the same article that is being categorised - only that there need to be references in Wikipedia articles." He also says "please stop - unless you intend to undo all 630 of the articles I have dealt with so far.". RSN perhaps. Dougweller ( talk) 11:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

RSN is going to be tough given the number of articles involved. Perhaps the answer is an RFC to get something into WP:REF or WP:CAT, which currently don't address this. ► Philg88 ◄ ^{♦ talk} 11:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1) According to WP:REF, of course articles need sources. However, WP:REF also makes it clear that those references have to be in Wikipedia, but not necessarily in the article. This is the reason why we are able to have category listings for redirects (for example), even though a redirect never has a reference within it.

2) In the case of the Reportedly haunted location articles, I have been adding categories based in references at List of reportedly haunted locations. As I have already explained, I intend to go back and add refereences to the individual articles, once I have completed the semi-automated task of categorising - it is far quicker to add the categories first in one batch, and then go through the category to see which articles require references, rather than to individually check and categorise the articles one at a time (at an apprioximate estimate, this should reduce the time taken to complete the task by over 50%, probably nearer 75%).

3) In all, of the articles I have added, six have been undone - only one of them more than once, and none of them more than three times (it seems Dougweller does not believe that WP:3RR is strict enough).

4) Note that I have edited several of the articles comprehensively and have made it clear I intend to further edit many of the articles I am categorising.

5) Please also note that where references on the List article seem dubious or inappropriate, I am checking for further references. I am not adding the category in cases where I can find no reputable source. In the case of the Great Wall of China, there appeared to be several sources. This is also the first time I've ever heard of any problems with about.com, in terms of its reliability - it is certainly regularly used as a site for references on Wikipedia. Grutness... wha? 11:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So far the only response at RSN is not supportive of your stance. As for about.com, it depends on the author and the use. An unsourced comment on an About.com page isn't enough. We have far too many bad sources being used in our articles, the number of uses doesn't make a source reliable. 3RR applies to single pages, read the nutshell. If bad material is added to 25 articles and I revert once in each article, that doesn't count as 25 reverts for 3RR. You on the other hand have reverted two editors in one article - not a violation but definitely 2 reverts. Dougweller ( talk) 16:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC) (forgot to sign and sinebot must be on a break)

I think it's you who'd better read the nutshell. I know 3RR - I helped to write that page. Two undos on one page doesn't violate 3RR. And two is all I have done on any one article. Yet you seem to think that is enough to warn me that I am doing something wrong. I am not, and if you think I am, you clearly d not understand how 3RR works. And I repeat they were not reverts, they were undos. I would not revert a good-faith edit. Grutness... wha? 23:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Grutness, I thought you were accusing me of 3RR. I certainly wasn't bringing up WP:3RR when I pointed out you had been reverted by 2 editors, and your statement on your talk page that you were undoing, not reverting, seems to contradict WP:3RR's "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." Dougweller ( talk) 05:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A revert often refers to a rollback, indicating vandalism, as opposed to an undo, which is simply restoring a page after a good-faith edit. I don't think any of the edits here were bad-faith, so I would not use the term revert to describe undoing them. Grutness... wha? 10:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The "haunted location" list articles are essentially an unsupervised dumping ground for rumors and bad sources. My favorite is the entry about stains on a telescope at University of Toledo. No one editor can keep up with the constant cleaning required, but maybe a Wikiproject could take these on? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

True, which is why we shouldn't be using it as the basis for putting an article in a category. Dougweller ( talk) 16:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Trivia cruft now seems to be creeping into categories ... sigh ... ► Philg88 ◄ ^{♦ talk} 16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note my comments above - I am using that list only as a basis for further checking before adding articles, and am not adding ones where the sources seem dodgy. As for the list as a whole being a dumping ground, I entirely agree - that is one reason why we have WikiProjects, to keep such lists tidy. Why WP:PN is not doing that, I do not know - it would make both sorting through the list to find valid items easier, and the veracity of the list itself far higher. Grutness... wha? 23:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Encyclopedic articles contains the list of articles in one reference source on ghosts. There are others as well. Those sources would probably be the best bases with which to build a list. They do take time to prepare though. John Carter ( talk) 16:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall use those in my category "trivia cruft" (sic. There's no point in having these categories in the first place if they're going to be empty - all I'm doing is adding relevant articles to them. If the articles are there and the categories are there, putting the articles in the categories is hardly "trivia cruft", it is standard Wikipedia practice). Grutness... wha? 23:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Some projects are more active than others. In a few weeks, maybe, I might have some more lists ready. John Carter ( talk) 00:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, you're right about the references on the lists - especially the US one, they're appalling (that's why I've only added about 1/4 of the items from that list to their respective categories, the others are weak, to put it mildly). Grutness... wha? 01:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Grutness You are quite correct: "There's no point in having these categories in the first place if they're going to be empty" —that's what WP:CFD is for. ► Philg88 ◄ ^{♦ talk} 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And if you take categories to CFD, the first thing asked is whether they are useful, and the second thing is can they be filled. Since the answer to both those questions is undeniably yes, filling the categories is the most logical, most practical, and most useful solution - not wasting everyone's time by either taking the categories to CFD or bickering about why they are being filled. Grutness... wha? 10:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong about there being other reference books on hauntings - I don't see any on World Cat. But I do see some approximations of such and will try to get them. John Carter ( talk) 17:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

More fringe bollocks on imaginary voice-transmission weapons. Another contributor has now created an article entitled ' Voice-to-skull‎' - note the hyphens. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Voice-to-skull -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

As per above, the crap has been nuked. This seems to be a standard case of an organised POV-push from a website for crazies. Guy ( Help!) 20:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Claimed spiritual/biological phenomena associated with near-death experiences. The article is quite a WP:BOMBARDMENT. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 07:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New Religion author active from the 1950s until his death in 1972. I'm finding some passing references but nothing that could be used as the basis of a biography; perhaps others might do better. Mangoe ( talk) 13:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Article using mostly fringe sources. Cannot find any reliable or skeptical/critical coverage of some of the claims. I would recommend an afd for the article or merging some of it into the telepathy article. Any thoughts? Goblin Face ( talk) 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have trimmed some of the more blatant OR, but I agree that notability is unclear: the number of sources is small and the number of current sources smaller still. Guy ( Help!) 21:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Issue resolved, I managed to find a lot of references. It's amazing how that article was up for a few years and nobody added them. Goblin Face ( talk) 19:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark, insist on adding a fringe theory to paleoclimatology (to the section of forcings). I previously removed the section because the topic of climate forcings in discussed at Climate change, and because of the fringe theory, poor referencing (A lot of ISBN's) and false statements. In particular he wants a mention of a proposed connection between climate change and cosmic rays. The theory is from around the year 2000, and there are 31 cites on Google Scholar for the term "Cosmic rays climate". The main studies are made not by climate scientists and didn't went through proper peer-review. One study is no longer online. (The entry Ref link is broken). I've tried to explain that cosmic rays are not a climate proxy and that there is no credible link established between cosmic rays and climate change.

On the bottom line, i have nothing against a discussion of this theory, however i don't think it is within the scope of this article to do this. Prokaryotes ( talk) 16:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, it is a mischaracterisation to say I am trying to add something. I have not added anything. What really happened is that I reverted a wholesale deletion without discussion of an entire large section that had been in the article for some time. This section is not only, or even mostly, about Veizer and it discusses him so heavily mostly to say how much he has been criticised. — Spinningspark 17:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I've updated the headline to better reflect that. prokaryotes ( talk) 18:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I am mistaken here, but I believe fringe does not mean "wrong". Michelson and Morley were wrong, but their famous experiment is certainly not considered fringe. My argument for keeping the Veizer material is that firstly, it is relevant: it is a theory about the ancient paleoclimate so I don't see how that is not relevant to the paleoclimatology article. It has gathered a great deal of attention in reliable sources; it is therefore both notable and not WP:UNDUE. Nor can it be said that the only attention is from the popular press. Veizer is very highly cited by scholars, his top article on gscholar has 1,272 cites. Papers cited in our article include his 2005 paper (57 cites), and a 2003 paper with Shaviv (263 cites). He is also discussed in depth on websites for climatology scientists. Veizer might well be wrong, I am not qualified to say, but he is clearly not being treated as a crackpot by his peers. It also needs saying that Jan Veizer is not a lone voice. As mentioned, he co-authored with Nir Shaviv. The theory is also supported by Henrik Svensmark whose paper on this subject is even more heavily cited (973 cites according to gs). Spinning Spark 17:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice, Svensmark and Veizer are both climate sceptics. However, this theory can be mentioned, just not in that article because it is not based on a climate proxy. As pointed out before, the right place is here and it is linked already on the climate change entry. prokaryotes ( talk) 17:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way "cosmic rays climate" might only get 31 results on scholar, but try it without the quotes and there are thousands. Further cosmic ray clouds gets even more (it is the claim by some that the effect of CR on cloud formation can explain modern global warming that makes Veizer's theory so controversial). There is little doubt that the theory is very widely discussed by scholars and readers are likely to come to our paleoclimatology article to learn more. Spinning Spark 17:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

SpinningSpark, there are thousands of papers on cosmic rays, because particles are a natural phenomena - but the studies do not involve paleoclimatology. prokaryotes ( talk) 18:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion Improve the section already covering the topic, here. And adding a section @paleoclimatology, based on current content of "Controlling factors", in regards to forcings, and removing the arbitrary sub section time spans, and adding the related forcings (internal/external, which includes celestial drivers) and link to main page @climate change#causes. prokaryotes ( talk) 16:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Point of process, in the first diff provided by Spinningspark I thought much of the material had nothing to do with cosmic (comic?) rays. So right off the bat, deleting other stuff with a cosmic ray complaint raises red flags. Suggest Prok. do a new deletion removing just the objectionable cosmic rays material, and then self revert. That would not be edit warring (since he would self revert the demo edit) but it would provide an easy way to communicate the narrow scope of the precise text that is at issue in this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i will wait for some more feedback here, maybe SpinningSpark can make a compromise as well. But for clarification the summary edit stated "NPOV and not scope of article, see /info/en/?search=Climate_change#Causes". It is not easy to clean up an article, as background the page was heavily cluttered with stuff from Veizer et al (9 mentions at least, in various places with non RS as references, eg. a lot about galactic spiral arm movement of the Milky Way and such)... prokaryotes ( talk) 17:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the section, per IPCC /info/en/?search=Paleoclimatology#Climate_forcings prokaryotes ( talk) 22:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Some discussion at Eurythmy over how medical claims made for it should be included, and on whether/how an OUP published book on Integrative Oncology is usable. More eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 12:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Christ on a bike. This is Steiner bollocks isn't it? I'll go and have a look. Guy ( Help!) 21:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to check: the consensus is that Oxford University Press does not constitute a reliable source for medical claims? HGilbert ( talk) 02:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OUP is not a "source", but a publisher. While they tend to publish a lot of things which can be good sources, sources still need to be evaluated in respect of the claims they make in the usual way. The "Weil Integrative Medicine Library" series is unlikely to contain much, if anything, we can assert as reliable health information. For eurythmy, the idea that engaging in "harmonious movement" can affect one's "inner life functions" and so play a part in treating people with cancer, is pure fringe. (Incidentally, you removed [47] these words - a direct quotation - from the article, which is a watering-down of its apparent fringeiness). Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 03:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you google H Gilbert and either Waldorf or eurythmy, a very obvious conflict of interest pops up. Fancy that. Guy ( Help!) 08:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's long-lived. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 08:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you google "ad hominem argumentation" you'll find some interesting reading matter, too. Is Oxford University Press a reliable source for medical claims or not? HGilbert ( talk) 14:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a WP:POINT-y question. There is no answer. We don't give an entire major publisher's catalogue a "pass" or "fail" in advance. To repeat: "sources still need to be evaluated in respect of the claims they make in the usual way". Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 14:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You have already been given the answer. OUP is a large firm and it published good and bad. Medical claims are judged by the quality of journal and its peer review process, not by the identity of the publisher. You will of course not be editing the article directly, due to your COI, but will restrict yourself to the talk page and be up front about the COI, yes? Guy ( Help!) 22:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Norway's former prime minister. There is a discussion on the talk page regarding to weather the Prime Minister said anything against Israel or its just a POV, as is stated by @ Huldra: and @ Bjerrebæk:. Me and @ Yambaram: have agreed that at least the JPost article is a legit reason to include such content, besides JPost, there were refs from Arutz Sheva and FrontPage Magazine, so it is not a POV by all means. I would like an uninvolved admin to intervene.-- Mishae ( talk) 19:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not really covered by WP:FRINGE. Since this dispute is already being discussed in a thread at WP:BLP/N I suggest it's better kept there. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 19:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can't come to an agreement there because user @ Bjerrebæk: doesn't even come there and continues to remove content that in his opinion is considered to be fringed. If it's possible, can you intervene there for balanced opinion. Many thanks in advance.-- Mishae ( talk) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FRINGE issue. We should have a Wikipedia:Political disputes noticeboard. Until then, you'll have to deal with issues case by case. WP:BLPN is your best bet. jps ( talk) 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with jps, let's discuss the thread in the proper board. This issue can't be handled simultaneously on 4 different discussions. Yambaram ( talk) 08:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Take care to avoid WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Pluto2012 ( talk) 09:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Reshuffling of a previously deleted article. Sensational claims with no sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Active edit war with two spa's that don't seem to understand WP:NPOV, consensus, general editing policies and how to count (much less WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Subject of 3RR noticeboard report. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks,

TL;DR: If you're dealing with a newbie editor who has started off in a WP:FRINGE area and is floundering, and if you don't have the time/patience/inclination to shepherd the editor to the point where they're able to make a positive contribution, then I'd be willing to help with a bit of mentoring.

Long version: We get lots of newbie WP:SPAs in WP:FRINGE areas. Most of them aren't able and/or willing to make a useful contribution. A few of them (and it may be a very small minority) might develop into valued editors given a bit of mentoring; more specifically, mentoring that steers them out of WP:FRINGE areas until they have a firmer grasp of WP:RS and how it gets applied. Trying to learn this while one's edits are getting reverted is difficult. Trying to learn this while stewing over a block just doesn't happen. If you're working with a new, enthusiastic editor who is making new-enthusiastic-editor mistakes, and you think that editor might benefit from a third-party explaining what the mistakes are before the situation devolves to edit wars and blocks, I'm happy to assist. I will not be making any edits to the articles under discussion, and will be encouraging the newbie to put off editing those articles until they've gained experience elsewhere.

I expect the success rate to be low (where success is measured as positive, sustained contribution, whether in WP:FRINGE articles, others, or both). That's fine. If the rate is zero, then I'll eventually decide to focus my efforts elsewhere. Suggestions and comments are welcome.

Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 16:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My only concern here is that you'll accidentally end up coaching them how to get their POV into Wikipedia, because you always assume good faith. Firm guidance is good, and I hope it doesn't try your patience too much. Good luck! Guy ( Help!) 22:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There is another venue you might want to look into; the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard needs volunteers. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy, thanks for the cautions and kind words. Guy Macon, that's an intriguing suggestion; I may get in touch with you to discuss it further. Best, Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 08:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Miraculous cures for cancer are mentioned, and the founder claims for AIDS and schizophrenia too. I'm inclined to think at least the entire "Medical studies" section here can be deleted, and some of the other wild claims need mainstream context. This type of yoga does not seem to have got much skeptical coverage though ... Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 13:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Further trimming done, unsupported added to claims. Specific diseases removed. This article relies heavily on primary sources and needs major cutting down to 3rd party RS supported material. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 17:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And now the push-back ... Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 06:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I provided a pretty clear explanation on the talk page (listing specific biomedical information), that was ignored when tags were again removed. I have tagged many of the refs as primary. Looks like the article is due for some pretty heavy trimming. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 06:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple explanations of policy and specific examples have been provided on the talk page. IDHT seems to be happening. A good fringe editor might want to step in and cut the promotional content and statements presented without balance and proper attribution. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles seem very keen on the theory that Dhul-Qarnayn refers to Cyrus the Great. It is currently given most weight in Cyrus the Great in the Quran and Dhul-Qarnayn, where at the latter it says, "In modern scholarship the character is identified as Cyrus the Great." And it cites only Volume 4 of Alameh Tehrani's Eschatology in Arabic: [48]. I can only read a machine translation of this, but his argument at times seems to depend on a premise of Quranic inerrantism, which does not seem like it would be afforded much weight within mainstream scholarship. I can't find anyone who cites Tehrani on this issue. When I confer with the mainstream texts in English, they don't even mention this theory, and rather affirm that the identification with Alexander is the standard view: The Blackwell Companion to the Qur'ān says: "Dhū'l-Qarnayn, an epithet usually assigned to Alexander the Great but also attributed to Moses by Muslim as well as Jewish and Christian exegetes." (Wheeler, p. 260). The Brill Encyclopedia of Islam, second edition says "It is generally agreed both by Muslim commentators and modern occidental scholars that D̲h̲u ’l-Ḳarnayn, “the two-horned”, in Sūra XVIII, 83/82-98 is to be identified with Alexander the Great." (Watt, "al-Iskandar"). The third edition says "Dhū al-Qarnayn (usually identified with Alexander the Great)" (Cook, "Gog and Magog"). The Brill Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān says "Traditional and modern scholars have identified the figure the Qurʾān refers to as the Possessor of the Two Horns (Dhū l-Qarnayn, q 18:83, 86, 94) as Alexander the Great (al-Iskandar in Arabic)." (Renard, "Alexander") What's the deal here? Is this a fringe theory being promoted? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 20:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree; it does seem as though many reliable sources disagree with the notion that Cyrus was the real Dhul-Qarnayn. Some articles need cleaning up. bobrayner ( talk) 22:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And I'm being told that even no other scholars seem to mention an Arabic source, we can still use it. Dougweller ( talk) 11:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't in great shape, but there's one particularly problematic bit; Dulles' supposed ties to Nazi Germany. Frankly I'm inclined to just throw it out, but there does seem to be a source for it and I'm not really familiar with policy in this area. The claims don't seem to have garnered any maintstream attention. Suggestions? -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 06:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The section was sourced to a single book that's been cited as controversial, to say the least [49], so I removed it. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A relatively new user, BernardZ, has taken to making a number of sweeping claims based on newly-published research and reports that seem unsupported by any other academic (or otherwise) sources.

The extra commentary added to Sunstone (medieval) with this edit (note additional personal theorising in the edit summary) and to Agriculture with this edit (again with personal theorising) are both based on extracts from recently-published Royal Society papers. Grammatical and WP:MOS errors and personal theories aside, are these strong enough sources to justify the insertion of significant new material into articles?

A half-way-point would be to add the material with an attribution to the publishers, making it clear that it is their theory, it's new and untested and stand-alone by comparison to other academia.

I removed both but was accused of "wikihounding" (having also removed several instances of completely unsourced original research from the same editor). Some extra eyes/advice from FRINGE/N regulars would be appreciated. Stalwart 111 02:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As regards the edit to Agriculture, having now read the paper, I can confirm that the edit reflects both the publicly accessible abstract and the full paper, though this is more primary than I thought from the abstract. The dates, which are new, come from carbon-dating at 4 sites (in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan), plus other evidence as to the grains being domesticated, so are not just "theory". Obviously I have a COI as Wikipedian-in-residence at the Royal Society, and the research is just published (2 April 2014), so I won't express a view on whether a mention is appropriate at this stage. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 17:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think on that basis it might be worth including though it would be good to have a proper summary of the research and its findings rather than someone's OR interpretation and a bare URL link. John, any chance you could prepare an appropriate summary based on your access to the whole text? - I'd be happy to add it. Stalwart 111 10:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks - I'll draft something & add to the talk page over the next few days. Note the "new dating" component is strictly geographically limited to the areas mentioned above - the Fertile Crescent, China etc had been growing crops millenia before. This is about the nomads et al on the steppes in between, and it might really fit better, or at greater length, into other more specific articles - I'll look at what these might be. Thanks, Wiki at Royal Society John/ Johnbod ( talk) 16:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great Johnbod - feel free to ping me as required and I'll make them as requested edits. Stalwart 111 12:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wiki at Royal Society John aka Johnbod ( talk) 13:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• L-Field (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ("emergent, unexplained qualities" of "the bio-electric field")
• Harold Saxton Burr (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (he who proposed L-Fields)

Thinking there's a notability issue here ... Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 04:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, hence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Saxton Burr. There may be one article between the two but even that is doubtful. Guy ( Help!) 08:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe article with more stuff added today. I know the editor added copyvio to another article ( Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo) but I can't tell if the material added to this article is copyvio from [50] as the Internet archive doesn't have an earlier version with the same text, but I suspect it is. Dougweller ( talk) 10:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Where's the notablity? - - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)