This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I am sincerely confused when a subject is religious and when it is not. See e.g. Talk:Arthur_Ford#Your_defense_of_skeptic_sources_e.g._at_talk:Arthur_Ford. Years ago I went thru mediation regarding Sathya Sai Baba with the outcome that skeptical sources, like the Indian Skeptic were not okay to use as a source for his miracles. See User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source In contrast the parapsychologist Erlendur Haraldsson was fine.
It seems to me that different policies apply when a subject is religious and when it is not, so the classification of the subject and article does matter. I think WP:fringe does not apply for religious subjects, like Arthur Ford.
Thanks in advance for ur comments. Andries ( talk) 14:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
What I am asking for is rules and guidelines and consistency among a range of articles, including Sathya Sai Baba, Miracles of Jesus and Arthur Ford. Andries ( talk) 16:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
May be a statement should be added to WP:Fringe that religious subjects i.e. subjects treated in religious studies, psychology of religion, sociology of religion, theology and not treated in other fields of science, fall outside the scope of fringe even if they contain some paranormal claims. What do you think? Andries ( talk) 21:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I also announced this discussion here here, because this is discussion about the scope of different policies and editing styles. Andries ( talk) 22:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Andries: OK you've initiated a general discussion around the premise "fringe does not apply for religious subjects" and you've made a specific proposal to change WP:FRINGE to reflect that, but you haven't gotten any support for your ideas here, and it's unlikely any will be forthcoming. At this point, it's probably best that you move your proposal to an appropriate place, i.e. Talk:Fringe theories. Do you have specific text changes you'd like to see at Sathya Sai Baba and Arthur Ford? If so, the Talk pages of those articles are your best bet to pursuing those. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Religious topics are not immune from WP:FRINGE... however, WP:FRINGE has to be applied within the context of religion. Within the broader topic area of "Religion", there are fringe religious movements, and fringe religious beliefs, and we appropriately give such movements and beliefs a lot less weight (or even no weight at all) than we do non-fringe religious movements and beliefs. Blueboar ( talk) 16:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I would value input here. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 13:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
A related subject: According to this edit by Bill Poser, claims that Muslim scholars had partly deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphs a full millennium before Champollion are not taken seriously in Egyptology. Nevertheless, Ibn Wahshiyya cites El Daly, apparently the main proponent of this idea, as a reliable source. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Until two weeks ago, this was a redirect; it has become an article and is accumulating some content on research into the health effects of meditiation (/mindfulness), over which there is some Talk page discussion. Fringe editors may wish to monitor this. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
(Add) Relatedly, I notice we also have:
which has a lot of non- WP:MEDRS sourcing at its heart. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up, but this could probably use some bookmarks - it had grown a thick crust of fringe theories and original research. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that this was important enough to Til Eulenspiegel for him to edit war (2 week block), I'm thinking that what I've raised at WP:NPOVN#Attribution issue at Ethiopia - do we need to say "known to scientists"? is a fringe issue - he seems to think it needs to be attributed to scientists - one of his edit summaries said "Uh oh, seems Doug Weller prefers to flare this into a dispute, says "attribution isn't necessary" for what European regime-paid scientists say, published views of Ethiopian scholars he deems irrelevant but theirs is the more prominent voice in that nation" - although I can't figure out from Ethiopia what he is talking about. At the moment the lead still has Til's version attributing it to scientists (and is vaguer than the relevant section in the article). I didn't bring it here earlier to avoid accusations from Til, but as he is now blocked and as I see it as a fringe issue relevant to other articles, I'm mentioning it here. Comments should go there, not here. Dougweller ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Do your thing. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be related to some kind of pseudo-homeopathy, the article as written presents these "remedies" uncritically. Could use the attention of someone with a broader knowledge of this area than I possess. CIreland ( talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
A new user claiming to be Targ has turned up on the article deleting skeptical references and inserting personal comments. Any eyes appreciated to watch over this, I have reverted him but he keeps re-adding his personal commentary. I have a feeling the same person was also editing on a bunch of IPs on the article deleting references a few weeks ago. Goblin Face ( talk) 21:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There is some more activity here. A new user is inserting content from an unreliable source. Discussion on talk page. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 19:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
jps ( talk) 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Category_talk:Answers_in_Genesis_staff_and_speakers#Category:Pseudoscientists.
jps ( talk) 12:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned before, Targ (on an IP address) and on an account "Torgownik" was editing his article adding in personal commentary and deleting references that were critical of his work in parapsychology. He was told to add reliable references for his claims when editing the article, but he did not listen. He has since complained on his facebook that users with a "hatred" for ESP are editing his Wikipedia article to remove his science career. Of course this is not true, neither is his other claim that Wikipedia banned him from editing his article. This is obviously a case of meat puppetry as he is telling people to come over and edit his article, [3], his rant has now been spammed around on various conspiracy theory/crank paranormal websites [4] [5], [6] etc. There is now a single purpose account adding in some fringe sources (obviously a friend of Targ), he was reverted but others will probably join in. The issue here though is that users such as myself have found it hard to find any reliable sources for his work in lasers. For example Targ claims to have been a "pioneer" in the earliest development of the laser but it has been hard to find any references for this, I also can't find any sources for his claims about working with NASA, if he did what did he work on? He claims to have worked on airborne laser wind measurements. Any help please appreciated with looking for these sources. Goblin Face ( talk) 19:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Prompted by a recent thread at WT:MED#Asserting "facts" and by discussions on the Talk page of Reiki, I want to ask a general question to check the consensus on neutral presentation of "facts" about claimed pseudoscientific phenomena. I'm using "fact" in the Wikipedia sense of being information about which there is no serious dispute. So, taking Qi as an example, and having a good source which states "The existence of Ki (or Qi, life energy) has not been proven scientifically", and assuming there are no reliable countering sources, should Wikipedia state:
In my view 4 & 5 are the only neutral variants and either is good (depending on context). Attributing this information gives an unwarranted implication that it is in serious dispute or is just opinion. I certainly don't think what is currently in our Qi article is good:
Thoughts? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Grinberg Method ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It has an isolated "Controversies" section, but besides that, it's gushing uncritically about... well, whatever this thing is (a "structured methodology" of "the expanded outlook of foot-analysis, reflexology and bodywork"). References are mainly primary, with a healthy bit of WP:OR sprinkled throughout. Kolbasz ( talk) 14:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ariel UFO incident (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Aliens land in Zimbabwe and communicate telepathically with school children... -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Andrew McIntosh (professor) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please note that there is very little in the way of explanation of fringe nature of this person's YEC beliefs.
jps ( talk) 12:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone with good template-fu might like to add File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg to the talk page header template for fringe topics under arbitration, or possibly to the "controversial" talk page template. Guy ( Help!) 16:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Need eyes. Yesterday I reverted an editor who added, amongst other material that "This age old natural therapy can prevent and cure cancer, AIDS, Renal failure, gall bladder stones, cerebral palsy" with some non-RS sources. He's replaced some and I've reverted again. Hopefully he will stop and I've asked people at a couple of Wikiprojects to counsel him. Dougweller ( talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The term "biologically based therapy" seems to me to be POV and lacking in any concrete definition; it was transcluded on urine therapy and Chinese food therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the last of which I have nominated for deletion as it's a single sentence that does not even try to establish its significance.
I have TfD nominated the template and moved the articles to {{ Alternative medicine}}. Guy ( Help!) 21:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
n:Glasgow cannabis enthusiasts celebrate 'green' on city green
"One speaker, who produced a bottle of cannabis oil he had received through the post, explained this cured his prostate cancer. Others highlighted the current use of Sativex by the National Health Service, with a cost in-excess of £150 for a single bottle of GW Pharmaceuticals patented spray — as-compared to the oil shown to the crowd, with a manufacturing cost of approximately £10."
Can we shut down this embarrassment to Wikimedia yet? Or do we have to let it zombie on to eternity?
Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thunderbird (cryptozoology) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
The bird equivalent of Bigfoot. Claimed sightings and argued existence cited to fringe sources and
About.com. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
User deleting mass material from the telepathy article claiming telepathy has scientific evidence and deleting references as biased "skeptical" sources. Two IPs have also joined in. They may all be the same person. They have been reverted, but it may be worth watching over this. Goblin Face ( talk) 14:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This is up for deletion. I strongly doubt that there is any such thing, and that there is nothing more than the kind of folk "eat your carrots' sort of thing that is also found in the west. I personally don't have a lot of time to pursue this but I invite others (who may also be more familiar with the territory anyway) to have a look. Mangoe ( talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A French physicist who has written some new age books. Some strange stuff on his article:
"There are microscopic individualities inside every human. They think, they know, and (they) carry Spirit in the Universe.”[2] Charon chooses to call these individual beings of intelligence, “eons.” They are otherwise known as electrons. Each electron or “eon” is an enclosed space, a thinking entity, intelligence, and even a micro-universe. But this is an inaccurate way of speaking about them, because as Michael Talbot (1991/1992) warns us in The Holographic Universe, “the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them.” [3] Thus, it would be more accurate to think of these beings in terms of wave interference patterns."
"The goal of the electron is developing the order of its Spirit. There are four psychic forces that organize living forms into entities of increasing energy or order: reflection, knowledge, love, and action. As the order grows, so do the psychic properties."
Finding it hard to locate any reliable references in English. Goblin Face ( talk) 17:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
See talk:Black mamba#Homoepathy section. Guy ( Help!) 10:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought the debate was settling down at TCM but now it was moved to acupuncture. The text is a summary of the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy ( Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Bumping thread. Guy ( Help!) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Anons and a couple of logged-in editors forum shopping frantically in an attempt to make the nasty reality-based community go away. Guy ( Help!) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Had a reversion today back to the fringe-filled version. I can see no evidence that the people whose opinions were quoted (or, in one case, the completely uncited, probable original research reading of the Bible) are notable opinions on the subject. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a non-notable article that should be deleted. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Peczkis
Comment.
jps ( talk) 18:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
There's been a good amount of material added to these pages recently pushing the fringe belief that the Bronze Age Subartu are the same people as the 7th century CE Sabir, and are thus an example of continuous Turkish presence in the Near East. There are a great deal of inline cites provided, but following these I find at least one blatant fabrication - the claim that H. Mark Hubey contributed to The Cambridge Ancient History series and that the book supports the Sabir/Subartu connection [15] (also added to Subartu but removed by another editor) - several fringe sources sometimes connected with the Hungarian or Turkish right-wing [16] [17] (in the last the Christian is reliable, but being misrepresented), and a number of scholarly sources that are being misrepresented, such as Dhorme, [18], the Christian linked before, and a group of sources concerning etymology that may be taken out of context, such as [19] [20]. The use of Old Turkic to provide an etymology for a people that preceded Old Turkic by over a thousand years is a sign of sloppiness at best, and illustrates what seems to be the thought process behind the sourcing: Google for anything that looks like Subartu, Sabir, Subar, etc., and assume that it must be making a Subartu-Tukish connection and present it as such. As the editor has a definite WP:IDHT problem, and I would rather not be in an edit war, some more eyes on this would be good. Ergative rlt ( talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists. QuackGuru ( talk) 08:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Has been progressively edited over the last few days to be extremely crazy-fringe-theory friendly. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Although created in 2009 heavily revised in the last few weeks as it was about the April eclipse. Might be worth putting on watchlists. Dougweller ( talk) 09:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Bumping thread. Guy ( Help!) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I've taken on the task of pruning this down to what's actually verifiable from reliable sources and encyclopaedic; ThaddeusB, who added the content I removed, seems to believe that WP:BRD starts with my bold reversion not his bold addition, and I'd appreciate some help explaining WP:ONUS to him. Guy ( Help!) 21:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone want to take a look at this? [22] As you likely know, Cremo claims modern humans have existed on Earth for several billion years. Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Fringe religious writer but at the talk page there's an attempt to remove a sentence about not being accepted by academics, which is explained in detail in the body of the text. Dougweller ( talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Oil pulling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aside from the non-
WP:MEDRS compliant claims, it seems to be simply an advertisement for Ayurveda.
jps ( talk) 16:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit was a violation of summary. Articles should properly summarise the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies
Could use some more comments.
jps ( talk) 05:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
What a horrible article. Appears to be a mix of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, no? Grounds for AFD? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Cyrinus/sandbox
A userspace copy of the article previously deleted at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibroacoustic therapy. No sooner did I put it up for MfD, the originating editor
submitted it to Articles for Creation. How can I advise the heavily backlogged AfC reviewers that the only changes have been the insertion of additional fringe sources? -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has added a pov tag to Paleoanthropology on the basis that mainstream archaeology is biased and that Michael Cremo must be included. I've removed it as a misunderstanding of NPOV and the purpose of the article but I expect him to put it back. See Talk:Paleoanthropology#Controversy section Dougweller ( talk) 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
From time to time I do a bit of work on our UFO articles. Many are in the same credulous state they were when written years ago by UFO enthusiasts, so it's not hard to find one that needs attention. Recently, after cleaning up material cited to fringe sources (and worse, fringe interpretations of material published by reliable sources) at Stephenville, TX UFO sightings I noticed a "Wikinews box" directing readers to a related news story, MUFON releases report on UFO sighting in Stephenville, Texas, that gives undue weight to a report by MUFON alleging government intimidation and conspiracies. Are these boxes an NPOV workaround, or what? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit added original research to the lede and made the text unclear. I explained the problems with the edit on the talk page. Also, changing fished out of to extracted is OR. Now the text in the lede is being rearranged out of order and a source previously deleted by User:JzG was restored against WP:CON. Obviously, none of the recent changes to the lede and body were improvements. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Now mass changes to acupuncture are being made to delete text that is critical of acupuncture and to add text that is promotional acupuncture. Also a source previously deleted at TCM was added to acupuncture. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog: Purpose of my post was to point out that it's wrong for QuackGuru and Guy to label DV as an "uninvolved" editor. Such a statement is factually incorrect, as DV's edit history shows. - A1candidate ( talk) 16:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The source says: "We hypothesized that there might have been a medical system similar to acupuncture". It's not even a theory but a hypothesis. Can you show me a better, more conclusive reliable source? - A1candidate ( talk) 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The only source you've provided is a hypothesis in The Lancet, which Ernst correctly classifies as speculation. - A1candidate ( talk) 04:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Since the PS classification seems to be - for some reason - in doubt, I added a reinforcing source. But it was quickly reverted. In general, it strikes me there are too many editors at work in these subjects with one hand on the keyboard and another on their wallet. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this edit? Looks suspicious to me. - DVdm ( talk) 20:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Can I get some more opinions here, please? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor is trying to force a fringe journal into the lede along with other controversial text. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine for previous WP:CON on the source written by the trade. The other text is from a personal website that may not be RS. I think none of the changes improved the lede. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The text "Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[8]" was deleted from the lede again. The text is obviously sourced and is part of the summary of Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Traditional_Chinese_medicine -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
There is currently an edit war going on over adding the category pseudoscientist to Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and John Baumgardner (and probably others) The argument has reached the level of absurdity to the point the following is posted on the talk page "Whether proof that a subject engages in pseudoscience allows us to add him to the "Pseudoscientists" category (which I dispute on the basis of WP:BLPCAT" A report has been filed at 3RRNB here and as I strongly suspect meat/sock puppetry as SPI here. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
There is an IP deleting the category pseudoscientist from the articles. QuackGuru ( talk) 08:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sourced content being removed, unparaphrased content with improperly formatted refs being added. Article needs some work. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 16:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I WP:PROD'd these four some days ago:
The proposed deletion of the first two has been contested. Are these articles in fact salvageable? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Fringe book, needs attention. Dougweller ( talk) 18:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The Autism Research Institute article has been edited by four single purpose accounts to the point where it is just an ad. The problem with this article is that the ARI have perhaps toned down some of their extreme views and now people that work at ARI (one admitted this!) are editing this article to reflect their new website. Bhny ( talk) 22:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This article has been butchered today by what appears to be a fringe sympathiser. His edits are also peppered by the 'minor' edit tag, and they are far from minor. I would welcome another opinion or two on my opinion. Thanks. - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, CANHELP as it was run by my Dad was a cancer information and referral service which spoke of conventional therapies in addition to naturopathic and non-toxic, non-invasive therapies. I don't know what it is today as I don't live in the home office any more and have no contact or interest in it. PMM was indeed a science writer who wrote the critically acclaimed "The Youth Doctors" in addition to the best-selling "The Pritikin Program for Diet and Exercise", both of which are concerned with scientific subject matter (health/longevity/nutrition).
I agree that that particular edit of Null was CV-ish, which included a long list of the accomplishments - I thought I'd go find the references after getting the map laid out. Next time I'll sandbox it or something. But I reversed your total, blind reversion because there was otherwise good edits in there that were warranted. I'd also suggest, as an editor, trying to see what was being accomplished and attempt to assist realizing the same goal of a fair, balanced, accurate, objective article rather than rip/revert which is essentially needlessly and completely destructive. The null article stood biased for a long time -- where was your mighty pen then? Had you visited it before? Were you aware of how biased it was and how unrepresentative of the total picture it presented?
I apologize for the misuse of the "minor" edit tag.
As to whether CANHELP provides misinformation today I do not know, but that is a libelous statement if untrue.
It appears you yourself have your own biases.
hello 17:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian McGrady ( talk • contribs)
Can someone please give me an opinion on this. There is a physics section on the psychokinesis article which represents the scientific consensus on the subject I.e. physics does not support psychic phenomena. The problem is that an IP keeps adding in fringe references claiming scientists believe quantum physics supports psychokinesis, I have reverted one of his edits already which was sourced to a spiritualist writer. But look at this edit here [29] he has now added and changed a reference to Victor Stenger which is a reliable source but I believe this is misleading because Stenger is very much against psychic phenomena. The source is being used to indicate Olivier Costa de Beauregard believes concepts of quantum mechanics support psychic phenomena but this is a serious fringe position. I think it should be removed as it's misleading to the article. Any thoughts? Goblin Face ( talk) 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
A promotional biography of an Indian homoeopath. Possibly autobiographical. Certainly non-compliant with WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 07:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to find sources that evaluate Citizendium in the past five years and don't declare it a failure. But it's not covered much either, s it's a failure.
But one editor really objects to the idea of using reliable sources to say that - even when no alternative views can be found. See Talk:Larry Sanger. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There has been some problems on this article, Targ has been edit-warring and this time he is deliberately using his account and his IP, please see the latest comments on the talk-page. Goblin Face ( talk) 01:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed that a recent edit has added catastrophist material by the Velikovskian Alfred de Grazia. Does anyone have the time to review the recent expansion of this article? Thanks.
It looks like it might have been copied from here, though I can't be sure which way the copying has been done.-- I am One of Many ( talk) 08:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've started a section at Talk:Biblical Mount Sinai asking how to handle the fringe. Dougweller ( talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Bringing this here as an IP hopper or meat puppet is mass deleting material [30] some of which mentions pseudo-scientific material. Dougweller ( talk) 09:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Phenomenon usually means an empirical event for which there is evidence beyond anecdote.
However, were there other "phenomena" during the Crucifixion of Jesus? Eclipses? Tearing of the Temple Curtain? Perhaps.... they were reported, though there is no corroborating evidence. The term is probably not properly used in our article, and the article also seems to delve into rather tenuous territory with guesses as to what actually occurred and what didn't.
Some users, including Ἀλήθεια ( talk · contribs) and HokieRNB ( talk · contribs), seem convinced that these are well-documented phenomena. This reminds me a lot of the "UFOs as phenomena" wars of some years past.
Help?
Not sure where else to turn. This is a word usage issue and seems vaguely pedantic.
jps ( talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to make the lead of the HIV/AIDS denialism state that the view is non-scientific. An editor (who actually agrees that is non-scientific) thinks we can wait until paragraph two. I strongly believe the first sentence of a fringe or pseudoscientific topic should state that it is such. Bhny ( talk) 23:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've made a few suggestions of alternative wording on the talk page. Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 15:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking this is entirely original research? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a fairly extensive discussion going on at Talk:Jews and Communism, which includes the issue of whether or not the article's subject is WP:FRINGE. Fresh eyes familiar with the policy could be helpful.
-- Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 16:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just restored a large amount of material removed from the article. There's a discussion at the talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 07:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 163#Looking for an opinion on scope of Wikipedia's coverage maybe be relevant to WP:FRINGE. Some sort of way of allowing articles that don't meet our notability requirements. I don' know if the discussion really matters as I don't think it will gain much support, but.... 20:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Just created this as a stub. I've added some sources on the talk page. Note that although this is clearly fringe we need to keep it balanced, not just the skeptics view. Dougweller ( talk) 10:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Fringe writers being used as references on Martin Gardner's article as criticism. A large quote from Colin Wilson has been added as a source [36] which looks undue. There is also a reference being used George P. Hansen (a parapsychologist) for the claim that Gardner endorsed a psychic. Considering Hansen has a record it appears of making things up about skeptics [37] I think the Hansen source should be deleted. It's also self-published. Any thoughts on this? Goblin Face ( talk) 03:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Avaya1 is changing the demographics section of the mentioned article. His/her edits inflate the numbers of Jews in Russia to one million simply because the chief rabbi of Russia estimated so. This is despite the fact that this rabbi's figure isn't accepted by anyone but himself. Khazar ( talk) 23:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It's the estimate of the community itself - he says in the second source that 'we estimate the community is over a million'. This is the head of community, the Chief Rabbi of Russia, and the head of the FJCR. And it has been repeated many times. Objecting to it on the basis that it is a 'fringe theory' is bizarre. How is the official position of the community conceivably counted as a 'fringe theory'? The ~ in front shows that it is a rough estimate. The variety of different estimates can be listed in the infobox (prefaced by the statement: 'different estimates have been given'), but removing the estimate of the community's own officials makes no sense. The reason for the discrepancy is partly that the census asked only nationality, but also depends on whether they are including first or second or third generation Jews (the larger figure is referring to the number of people with Jewish grandparents). Avaya1 ( talk) 15:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
'In the face of ample data pointing to a demographic collapse of Jewish population in the countries comprising the former Soviet Union, wishing thinking persists'. With regard to the Russian Federation, for instance, highly inflated figures purporting to be the "real" number o Jews -ranging from 1,000,,000-2,000,000 to the more fantastical figure of 10 million-continue to circulate online and in the popular press, even as he number of pupils in Jewish schools and the roster of those receiving aid from Jewish charities continue to decline. The problem is exacerbated when erroneous figures find their way into scholarly publications.' Mark Tolts,'Sources for the Demographic Study of the Jews in the Former Soviet Union,' in Uzi Rebhun (ed.) The Social Scientific Study of Jewry: Sources, Approaches, Debates, Institute of Contemporary Jewry. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem/Oxford University Press, Vol. XXV11 2014 pp.160-177, p.172.</
Just a heads-up that IP 184.101.78.153 is trying to add into History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Jews_in_the_revolutionary_movement some of the material deleted as part of Jews and Communism (diff).
See also
and Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia.
Same user has deleted content about Russian anti-semitism from Antisemitism in the Russian Empire ( diff).
Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 11:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
He's not not happy about his Wikipedia article. This may attract more attention to Deepak Chopra so wise eyes, as always, are welcome. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
A response can be found here [38] Goblin Face ( talk) 16:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
In his latest comment, Targ [39] has mentioned someone called Marilyn Schlitz. I have never heard of her before. I had a look and I was surprised she has a Wikipedia article. Appears to be another fringe parapsychologist but she really is not that notable. I can't find any reliable sources. I believe this should be an afd. Any thoughts? Goblin Face ( talk) 01:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
A specific template to tag Unreliable fringe sources was deleted without a valid explanation. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Phrase used once by J. Allen Hynek at a UFO symposium, does it deserve an entire article? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Of possible interest:
jps ( talk) 18:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Mass material being added by a user who has become friendly with Russell Targ to this article, but unfortunately most of it is being sourced to paranormal fringe book by a remote viewer Paul Smith (2005). Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate: America's Psychic Espionage Program - and page numbers are not even given. Paul Smith is a psychic remote viewer and is the owner of a remote viewing company but does not appear to be that notable [40]. I am not opposing that this source cannot be used at all it can but not undue weight, but please see the latest section at the bottom of the article which was added entitled "methodology". There is some extreme fringe claims here all sourced to only Paul's book without any page numbers. I could not find any reliable sources for most of this information either. Lot's of other fringe material has been inserted into the article which seems impossible to verify with reliable sources. Perhaps someone who is well researched in this subject can take a look. Thanks. Goblin Face ( talk) 03:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Should article be trimmed down?
Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 11:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Champ (cryptozoology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I encourage those active at this page to read through this and try to identify which text is actually in line with our policies and which is not. I would wager the majority of the text ought to be removed for some or other violation.
jps ( talk) 19:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I have written a new essay at WP:Scepticism is mainstream covering why scepticism is important in the philosophical and sociological ways that academia works.
Please cite this essay as part of explanations to support WP:FRINGE.
If anyone has any questions comments or editing suggestions, let me know. There are other similar topics that I may also write essays on when I get round to it, so I don't want the essay wandering off topic too much if that topic can be covered elsewhere.
This is partly inspired by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV ( talk · contribs)'s magnificently succinct WP:MAINSTREAM. But this covers primarily what MAINSTREAM means, rather than as a general point.
Barney the barney barney ( talk) 20:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what's going on with this article? :) Goblin Face ( talk) 03:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Given the conversion into Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, we now have a probably abortive proliferation of subcategories which are now the subject of a deletion discussion. In my opinion, the decision to restrict the new category was ill-advised, because it cut loose anyone who wasn't already in one of the extant subcats. I don't see these new subcats as a solution that's going to survive review, because they create the same problem as existed before, only a level down the tree. In the spirit of the rename, I would suggest something like Category:Advocates of fringe physics, and so forth.
But the other problem is that a lot of articles got cut loose and now have no categorization under fringe advocacy at all. Ideas about solving these problems? Mangoe ( talk) 01:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of Fetzer as
WP:FRINGE
|
---|
James H. Fetzer (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
It's a BLP. Article gives much space to explaining subject's various conspiracy theories and fringe views in detail. Seems odd to me that section explaining Reception of these views is missing. Talk page loaded with walls of philosophical rhetoric arguing for only the gentlest of criticism. Eyes and opinions needed. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, you can see the WP:OWN the Fetzer article's up against. One of the hazards when you get out on the fringe is that most people who've ever even heard of Conspiracy Guy X have done so because they're already on the bwahaha bandwagon, and you get articles like the current state of this one. That Fetzer himself keeps coming back to edit it doesn't help much either. Fleenier ( talk) 19:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@Occurring. Well, the
WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff is a problem. And it starts on your own
user page where you rail against
User:Frizzmaz and the witchhunting mob" at
WP:FTN. I don't have to tell you,
that's not a good use of your user page, and it's very off-putting to others. I also think you can see there is agreement among editors that your English language writing skills, as applied to the article text, are less than ideal. There are problems with the article, particularly the Conspiracy theories section. Some of this may be due to confusing grammar. Some of it may be due to undue weight on primary sources. Forget the personal Talk page conflicts for the moment. Are you willing to work with other editors to remedy the problems at the
James H. Fetzer article? When I have a free block of time, I had planned to help do the cleanup work needed. But if you're going to simply revert changes, then I'd rather not waste my time. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 23:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The entirety of a banner atop WP:FRINGE: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. Are Fetzer's views on alleged government conspiracies a mainstream idea. Or are they are minority viewpoint itself? Before LuckyLouie opened this topic on the Fringe noticeboard, I had started on the Fetzer article's talkpage a new section specifically addressing LuckyLouie's concern, but LuckyLouie [ still has not responded in it]. So why did LuckyLouie instead begin a topic on it here on the Fringe noticeboard while confabulating paranoid delusions and outright lies about my editing of the article and activities on the talkpage? Was it to be lucky in inciting a lynch mob of village atheists? Yet LuckyLouie deigned to respond in a different talkpage section when someone proposed deleting most of the Fetzer article. In that section, I posed a curious finding and speculation: The irony of this was that LuckyLouie was the one who called for the elaboration and elucidation of the reception to Fetzer's claims by adding the fringe tag and wholly stating, "Odd that there's no 'reception' or "criticism' for the many fringe theories presented here. Per WP:FRINGE, we need to present how the fringe view differs from mainstream view" [ difference]. When the article really was just a board for Fetzer's conspiracy claims made in primary sources, none of this criticism was being aired [ difference before/after my very first edit at this Fetzer article]. Why does all of this criticism come only once I show—as LuckyLouie urged—the reception of Fetzer's "many fringe theories"? (I already explained that there are not even "many fringe theories presented here" [ here]) Could it be that, actually, I have made Fetzer merely appear not wholly crazy? |
Just a quick note. At this point the section is 47K words long; nearly seven of eight of those words come from just one poster. It's an ineffective strategy. More is not better. As the Fetzer article has just been given a well-deserved trimming addressing the WP:FRINGE problem, there is no need to continue this discussion. Fleenier ( talk) 14:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Mass content being added by a new user. Some of it looks ok but some of the references look fringe. Any thoughts about what to do on this one? Goblin Face ( talk) 22:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This article about allegedly psychic twins is very sad reading and a monument to bad sourcing. Highly promotional tone and lots of "predictions" cited to what someone heard on Coast to Coast or some obscure website, or some obscure podcast, or their own autobiography. Also lots of synthesis connecting their alleged predictions to news reports that supposedly confirm their psychic powers. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
AfD? Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 20:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
... and editors are gaily running around deleting the category from the BLP's of pseudoscientists, and not adding the alternative category "Advocate of Pseudoscience". I suspect that I have missed something in the "ruling" because alcohol, but it ain't right - what can we do? - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 22:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Is 5:2 a 'fad diet'? Or just a 'diet'?
-- Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 14:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I've Teslascope ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. Egregious WP:SYNTH combined with excessive quote-mining leads to a misleading article which seems to serve no purpose other than to mythologise it's purported inventor. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Chiles-Whitted UFO encounter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A nice little unreferenced piece of work. Is this a WP:COPYVIO perhaps of Jerome Clark?
jps ( talk) 18:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Allagash Abductions ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Since 2008, this article has been tagged for problems. Can someone with lots of time find some sources, edit the article, remove th original research, etc?
jps ( talk) 17:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Laredo, Texas UFO crash ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Credulity reigns supreme in the write-up of this UFO crash. I feel like scare quotes should be in the title, in spite of WP:MOS. Help cleaning up this article would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This change was too wordy IMHO. See Talk:Chinese herbology#Simpler wording was better. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"Acupuncture needles are a medical instrument used to cure ailments by the method of withdrawing blood and stimulating certain points on humans and animals by inserting them on specific pressure points of the body." See Traditional Korean medicine#Acupuncture. That is news to me that acupuncture is used to cure ailments. I think that article requires some updating. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"Yamamoto New Scalp Acupuncture". Please have a look at this, WP:FTN folks. TIA. Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 14:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Wigglesworth was a Pentecostal faith healer, an ex-plumber who believed he could cure cancer. His supporters made claims that he made feet grow on someone who had none, and that people were raised from the dead by his preaching. Unfortunately, all the books on the subject are of the credulous type, with not the slightest appearance of critical analysis. I have tried to inject some degree of skepticism and balance in the article, but with difficulty. One editor reverted the point that Wigglesworth had no medical training (he claimed cancer was caused by 'demons'). Fresh eyes would be useful here. -- Rbreen ( talk) 15:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I notice some WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE violations since the push that started two weeks ago; compare with this version. An easy starting place is to restore the New Republic source and accompanying text per WP:PSCI. (I would rather not make that change since the New Republic links to something I wrote.)
The talk page is a bit of a funny farm mess (search for "Hitler"), being dominated by a paid Chopra shill advocate, an editor who was twice topic-banned from Transcendental Meditation, and a sockpuppeteer who wrote an off-wiki declaration of war calling Wikipedia editors "scoundrels" and "pisspoor bastards".
vzaak 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not intend to be unduly negative; I was just trying to describe the situation. By "funny farm" I simply meant "a mess", which is what others have observed on that talk page. The word "shill" has disrespectful connotations, so I have changed it to "advocate". It is not a personal attack to mention that someone who was previously topic-banned for tendentious editing on TM articles is now active on an article related to TM. It is also not a personal attack to mention another editor's personal attacks. vzaak 18:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC: Move criticism up lede?
Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para.
Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 11:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
To avoid the more unpleasant aspects of how discussions about this page have gone in the past, I ask you to provide your limited input: here.
jps ( talk) 17:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I recently corrected and improved some information on the Germany page about the number of people killed during World War II and the Holocaust. Specifically, I included actual numbers and not just "millions". I also added the lower estimates given by the West German Government to the article although the article cited a German accademic ( Rüdiger Overmans) whose page only had one reference on it and his claim to notability seems to be coming up with this high estimate of German soldiers killed during the war. Does including his statistics in the text sound like it's what Wikipedia would called a fringe theory and if so, what should I do? Thanks! Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 15:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonsall UFO.
Sigh. This walled garden needs some more weeders.
jps ( talk) 00:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
UFO sightings in China ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Cleaning up would be a welcome undertaking.
jps ( talk) 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This is the guy who thinks he's he may be the reincarnation of Cayce. I reverted some publicity links earlier today, mainly about a 'Hollywood movie' which seems to be just a dream right now. But after that I caught up with some posts on my talk page and one directed me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Molinaro which points out that being a best-selling author, which he is, doesn't confer notability. The only RS I've found so far that actually discusses him in any depth is a source, [53] and that is just a short paragraph. Can anyone find more or want to work on the article? Dougweller ( talk) 10:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please look at this, over 80 references added but all from the same book? Goblin Face ( talk) 18:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Close encounter (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
IP keeps adding
weird "Transology" stuff. Hynek's first three classifications are notable and cited to reliable enough sources. The rest of the article is a magnet for bizarre cruft from fringe sources. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 01:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Dark Complected Man ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another article linked to the JFK assassination conspiracy theories. The only information that I can found about this person in reliable sources is Louie Steven Witt's testimony about sitting next to a "Negro man". Given the lack of discussion about "Dark Complected Man" or this part of Witt's testimony in secondary reliable sources, should this be redirected to Umbrella Man or put up on Afd? Is anyone else able to find reliable sources about this person? Thoughts? Location ( talk) 02:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Turkey UFO sightings.
I'm going to keep working my way through these slowly.
jps ( talk) 12:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Licorne ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tired light ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne.
The old anti-semetic fringe physics promoter is baaaack.
Please go through the contributions of 96.228.244.95 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to see if there are any problems.
Sympathetic admins who are watching this page may wish to take note.
jps ( talk) 17:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Coyame UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would somebody look at this article and remove all the stuff that isn't reliably sourced? After you do that, will there be anything left?
jps ( talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Fringe New WOrld Order pushing film. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, we are getting very inexperienced editors arguing to keep it with arguments such as "Having seen this film, knowing the content and people featured within. and knowing where it gets seen and the following and controversy it has attracted, i'd say it has definite notability." and " The question whether the film is notable enough for Wikipedia could be answered by more research. There's not doubt in my mind that Brooks is notable. The film follows."(while admitting lack of reviews). Dougweller ( talk) 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I am sincerely confused when a subject is religious and when it is not. See e.g. Talk:Arthur_Ford#Your_defense_of_skeptic_sources_e.g._at_talk:Arthur_Ford. Years ago I went thru mediation regarding Sathya Sai Baba with the outcome that skeptical sources, like the Indian Skeptic were not okay to use as a source for his miracles. See User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source In contrast the parapsychologist Erlendur Haraldsson was fine.
It seems to me that different policies apply when a subject is religious and when it is not, so the classification of the subject and article does matter. I think WP:fringe does not apply for religious subjects, like Arthur Ford.
Thanks in advance for ur comments. Andries ( talk) 14:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
What I am asking for is rules and guidelines and consistency among a range of articles, including Sathya Sai Baba, Miracles of Jesus and Arthur Ford. Andries ( talk) 16:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
May be a statement should be added to WP:Fringe that religious subjects i.e. subjects treated in religious studies, psychology of religion, sociology of religion, theology and not treated in other fields of science, fall outside the scope of fringe even if they contain some paranormal claims. What do you think? Andries ( talk) 21:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I also announced this discussion here here, because this is discussion about the scope of different policies and editing styles. Andries ( talk) 22:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Andries: OK you've initiated a general discussion around the premise "fringe does not apply for religious subjects" and you've made a specific proposal to change WP:FRINGE to reflect that, but you haven't gotten any support for your ideas here, and it's unlikely any will be forthcoming. At this point, it's probably best that you move your proposal to an appropriate place, i.e. Talk:Fringe theories. Do you have specific text changes you'd like to see at Sathya Sai Baba and Arthur Ford? If so, the Talk pages of those articles are your best bet to pursuing those. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Religious topics are not immune from WP:FRINGE... however, WP:FRINGE has to be applied within the context of religion. Within the broader topic area of "Religion", there are fringe religious movements, and fringe religious beliefs, and we appropriately give such movements and beliefs a lot less weight (or even no weight at all) than we do non-fringe religious movements and beliefs. Blueboar ( talk) 16:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I would value input here. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 13:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
A related subject: According to this edit by Bill Poser, claims that Muslim scholars had partly deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphs a full millennium before Champollion are not taken seriously in Egyptology. Nevertheless, Ibn Wahshiyya cites El Daly, apparently the main proponent of this idea, as a reliable source. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Until two weeks ago, this was a redirect; it has become an article and is accumulating some content on research into the health effects of meditiation (/mindfulness), over which there is some Talk page discussion. Fringe editors may wish to monitor this. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
(Add) Relatedly, I notice we also have:
which has a lot of non- WP:MEDRS sourcing at its heart. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up, but this could probably use some bookmarks - it had grown a thick crust of fringe theories and original research. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that this was important enough to Til Eulenspiegel for him to edit war (2 week block), I'm thinking that what I've raised at WP:NPOVN#Attribution issue at Ethiopia - do we need to say "known to scientists"? is a fringe issue - he seems to think it needs to be attributed to scientists - one of his edit summaries said "Uh oh, seems Doug Weller prefers to flare this into a dispute, says "attribution isn't necessary" for what European regime-paid scientists say, published views of Ethiopian scholars he deems irrelevant but theirs is the more prominent voice in that nation" - although I can't figure out from Ethiopia what he is talking about. At the moment the lead still has Til's version attributing it to scientists (and is vaguer than the relevant section in the article). I didn't bring it here earlier to avoid accusations from Til, but as he is now blocked and as I see it as a fringe issue relevant to other articles, I'm mentioning it here. Comments should go there, not here. Dougweller ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Do your thing. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be related to some kind of pseudo-homeopathy, the article as written presents these "remedies" uncritically. Could use the attention of someone with a broader knowledge of this area than I possess. CIreland ( talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
A new user claiming to be Targ has turned up on the article deleting skeptical references and inserting personal comments. Any eyes appreciated to watch over this, I have reverted him but he keeps re-adding his personal commentary. I have a feeling the same person was also editing on a bunch of IPs on the article deleting references a few weeks ago. Goblin Face ( talk) 21:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There is some more activity here. A new user is inserting content from an unreliable source. Discussion on talk page. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 19:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
jps ( talk) 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Category_talk:Answers_in_Genesis_staff_and_speakers#Category:Pseudoscientists.
jps ( talk) 12:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned before, Targ (on an IP address) and on an account "Torgownik" was editing his article adding in personal commentary and deleting references that were critical of his work in parapsychology. He was told to add reliable references for his claims when editing the article, but he did not listen. He has since complained on his facebook that users with a "hatred" for ESP are editing his Wikipedia article to remove his science career. Of course this is not true, neither is his other claim that Wikipedia banned him from editing his article. This is obviously a case of meat puppetry as he is telling people to come over and edit his article, [3], his rant has now been spammed around on various conspiracy theory/crank paranormal websites [4] [5], [6] etc. There is now a single purpose account adding in some fringe sources (obviously a friend of Targ), he was reverted but others will probably join in. The issue here though is that users such as myself have found it hard to find any reliable sources for his work in lasers. For example Targ claims to have been a "pioneer" in the earliest development of the laser but it has been hard to find any references for this, I also can't find any sources for his claims about working with NASA, if he did what did he work on? He claims to have worked on airborne laser wind measurements. Any help please appreciated with looking for these sources. Goblin Face ( talk) 19:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Prompted by a recent thread at WT:MED#Asserting "facts" and by discussions on the Talk page of Reiki, I want to ask a general question to check the consensus on neutral presentation of "facts" about claimed pseudoscientific phenomena. I'm using "fact" in the Wikipedia sense of being information about which there is no serious dispute. So, taking Qi as an example, and having a good source which states "The existence of Ki (or Qi, life energy) has not been proven scientifically", and assuming there are no reliable countering sources, should Wikipedia state:
In my view 4 & 5 are the only neutral variants and either is good (depending on context). Attributing this information gives an unwarranted implication that it is in serious dispute or is just opinion. I certainly don't think what is currently in our Qi article is good:
Thoughts? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Grinberg Method ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It has an isolated "Controversies" section, but besides that, it's gushing uncritically about... well, whatever this thing is (a "structured methodology" of "the expanded outlook of foot-analysis, reflexology and bodywork"). References are mainly primary, with a healthy bit of WP:OR sprinkled throughout. Kolbasz ( talk) 14:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ariel UFO incident (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Aliens land in Zimbabwe and communicate telepathically with school children... -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Andrew McIntosh (professor) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please note that there is very little in the way of explanation of fringe nature of this person's YEC beliefs.
jps ( talk) 12:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone with good template-fu might like to add File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg to the talk page header template for fringe topics under arbitration, or possibly to the "controversial" talk page template. Guy ( Help!) 16:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Need eyes. Yesterday I reverted an editor who added, amongst other material that "This age old natural therapy can prevent and cure cancer, AIDS, Renal failure, gall bladder stones, cerebral palsy" with some non-RS sources. He's replaced some and I've reverted again. Hopefully he will stop and I've asked people at a couple of Wikiprojects to counsel him. Dougweller ( talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The term "biologically based therapy" seems to me to be POV and lacking in any concrete definition; it was transcluded on urine therapy and Chinese food therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the last of which I have nominated for deletion as it's a single sentence that does not even try to establish its significance.
I have TfD nominated the template and moved the articles to {{ Alternative medicine}}. Guy ( Help!) 21:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
n:Glasgow cannabis enthusiasts celebrate 'green' on city green
"One speaker, who produced a bottle of cannabis oil he had received through the post, explained this cured his prostate cancer. Others highlighted the current use of Sativex by the National Health Service, with a cost in-excess of £150 for a single bottle of GW Pharmaceuticals patented spray — as-compared to the oil shown to the crowd, with a manufacturing cost of approximately £10."
Can we shut down this embarrassment to Wikimedia yet? Or do we have to let it zombie on to eternity?
Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thunderbird (cryptozoology) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
The bird equivalent of Bigfoot. Claimed sightings and argued existence cited to fringe sources and
About.com. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
User deleting mass material from the telepathy article claiming telepathy has scientific evidence and deleting references as biased "skeptical" sources. Two IPs have also joined in. They may all be the same person. They have been reverted, but it may be worth watching over this. Goblin Face ( talk) 14:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This is up for deletion. I strongly doubt that there is any such thing, and that there is nothing more than the kind of folk "eat your carrots' sort of thing that is also found in the west. I personally don't have a lot of time to pursue this but I invite others (who may also be more familiar with the territory anyway) to have a look. Mangoe ( talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A French physicist who has written some new age books. Some strange stuff on his article:
"There are microscopic individualities inside every human. They think, they know, and (they) carry Spirit in the Universe.”[2] Charon chooses to call these individual beings of intelligence, “eons.” They are otherwise known as electrons. Each electron or “eon” is an enclosed space, a thinking entity, intelligence, and even a micro-universe. But this is an inaccurate way of speaking about them, because as Michael Talbot (1991/1992) warns us in The Holographic Universe, “the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them.” [3] Thus, it would be more accurate to think of these beings in terms of wave interference patterns."
"The goal of the electron is developing the order of its Spirit. There are four psychic forces that organize living forms into entities of increasing energy or order: reflection, knowledge, love, and action. As the order grows, so do the psychic properties."
Finding it hard to locate any reliable references in English. Goblin Face ( talk) 17:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
See talk:Black mamba#Homoepathy section. Guy ( Help!) 10:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought the debate was settling down at TCM but now it was moved to acupuncture. The text is a summary of the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy ( Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Bumping thread. Guy ( Help!) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Anons and a couple of logged-in editors forum shopping frantically in an attempt to make the nasty reality-based community go away. Guy ( Help!) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Had a reversion today back to the fringe-filled version. I can see no evidence that the people whose opinions were quoted (or, in one case, the completely uncited, probable original research reading of the Bible) are notable opinions on the subject. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a non-notable article that should be deleted. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Peczkis
Comment.
jps ( talk) 18:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
There's been a good amount of material added to these pages recently pushing the fringe belief that the Bronze Age Subartu are the same people as the 7th century CE Sabir, and are thus an example of continuous Turkish presence in the Near East. There are a great deal of inline cites provided, but following these I find at least one blatant fabrication - the claim that H. Mark Hubey contributed to The Cambridge Ancient History series and that the book supports the Sabir/Subartu connection [15] (also added to Subartu but removed by another editor) - several fringe sources sometimes connected with the Hungarian or Turkish right-wing [16] [17] (in the last the Christian is reliable, but being misrepresented), and a number of scholarly sources that are being misrepresented, such as Dhorme, [18], the Christian linked before, and a group of sources concerning etymology that may be taken out of context, such as [19] [20]. The use of Old Turkic to provide an etymology for a people that preceded Old Turkic by over a thousand years is a sign of sloppiness at best, and illustrates what seems to be the thought process behind the sourcing: Google for anything that looks like Subartu, Sabir, Subar, etc., and assume that it must be making a Subartu-Tukish connection and present it as such. As the editor has a definite WP:IDHT problem, and I would rather not be in an edit war, some more eyes on this would be good. Ergative rlt ( talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists. QuackGuru ( talk) 08:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Has been progressively edited over the last few days to be extremely crazy-fringe-theory friendly. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Although created in 2009 heavily revised in the last few weeks as it was about the April eclipse. Might be worth putting on watchlists. Dougweller ( talk) 09:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Bumping thread. Guy ( Help!) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I've taken on the task of pruning this down to what's actually verifiable from reliable sources and encyclopaedic; ThaddeusB, who added the content I removed, seems to believe that WP:BRD starts with my bold reversion not his bold addition, and I'd appreciate some help explaining WP:ONUS to him. Guy ( Help!) 21:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone want to take a look at this? [22] As you likely know, Cremo claims modern humans have existed on Earth for several billion years. Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Fringe religious writer but at the talk page there's an attempt to remove a sentence about not being accepted by academics, which is explained in detail in the body of the text. Dougweller ( talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Oil pulling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aside from the non-
WP:MEDRS compliant claims, it seems to be simply an advertisement for Ayurveda.
jps ( talk) 16:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit was a violation of summary. Articles should properly summarise the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies
Could use some more comments.
jps ( talk) 05:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
What a horrible article. Appears to be a mix of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, no? Grounds for AFD? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Cyrinus/sandbox
A userspace copy of the article previously deleted at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibroacoustic therapy. No sooner did I put it up for MfD, the originating editor
submitted it to Articles for Creation. How can I advise the heavily backlogged AfC reviewers that the only changes have been the insertion of additional fringe sources? -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has added a pov tag to Paleoanthropology on the basis that mainstream archaeology is biased and that Michael Cremo must be included. I've removed it as a misunderstanding of NPOV and the purpose of the article but I expect him to put it back. See Talk:Paleoanthropology#Controversy section Dougweller ( talk) 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
From time to time I do a bit of work on our UFO articles. Many are in the same credulous state they were when written years ago by UFO enthusiasts, so it's not hard to find one that needs attention. Recently, after cleaning up material cited to fringe sources (and worse, fringe interpretations of material published by reliable sources) at Stephenville, TX UFO sightings I noticed a "Wikinews box" directing readers to a related news story, MUFON releases report on UFO sighting in Stephenville, Texas, that gives undue weight to a report by MUFON alleging government intimidation and conspiracies. Are these boxes an NPOV workaround, or what? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit added original research to the lede and made the text unclear. I explained the problems with the edit on the talk page. Also, changing fished out of to extracted is OR. Now the text in the lede is being rearranged out of order and a source previously deleted by User:JzG was restored against WP:CON. Obviously, none of the recent changes to the lede and body were improvements. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Now mass changes to acupuncture are being made to delete text that is critical of acupuncture and to add text that is promotional acupuncture. Also a source previously deleted at TCM was added to acupuncture. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog: Purpose of my post was to point out that it's wrong for QuackGuru and Guy to label DV as an "uninvolved" editor. Such a statement is factually incorrect, as DV's edit history shows. - A1candidate ( talk) 16:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The source says: "We hypothesized that there might have been a medical system similar to acupuncture". It's not even a theory but a hypothesis. Can you show me a better, more conclusive reliable source? - A1candidate ( talk) 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The only source you've provided is a hypothesis in The Lancet, which Ernst correctly classifies as speculation. - A1candidate ( talk) 04:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Since the PS classification seems to be - for some reason - in doubt, I added a reinforcing source. But it was quickly reverted. In general, it strikes me there are too many editors at work in these subjects with one hand on the keyboard and another on their wallet. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this edit? Looks suspicious to me. - DVdm ( talk) 20:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Can I get some more opinions here, please? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor is trying to force a fringe journal into the lede along with other controversial text. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine for previous WP:CON on the source written by the trade. The other text is from a personal website that may not be RS. I think none of the changes improved the lede. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The text "Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[8]" was deleted from the lede again. The text is obviously sourced and is part of the summary of Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Traditional_Chinese_medicine -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
There is currently an edit war going on over adding the category pseudoscientist to Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and John Baumgardner (and probably others) The argument has reached the level of absurdity to the point the following is posted on the talk page "Whether proof that a subject engages in pseudoscience allows us to add him to the "Pseudoscientists" category (which I dispute on the basis of WP:BLPCAT" A report has been filed at 3RRNB here and as I strongly suspect meat/sock puppetry as SPI here. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
There is an IP deleting the category pseudoscientist from the articles. QuackGuru ( talk) 08:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sourced content being removed, unparaphrased content with improperly formatted refs being added. Article needs some work. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 16:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I WP:PROD'd these four some days ago:
The proposed deletion of the first two has been contested. Are these articles in fact salvageable? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Fringe book, needs attention. Dougweller ( talk) 18:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The Autism Research Institute article has been edited by four single purpose accounts to the point where it is just an ad. The problem with this article is that the ARI have perhaps toned down some of their extreme views and now people that work at ARI (one admitted this!) are editing this article to reflect their new website. Bhny ( talk) 22:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This article has been butchered today by what appears to be a fringe sympathiser. His edits are also peppered by the 'minor' edit tag, and they are far from minor. I would welcome another opinion or two on my opinion. Thanks. - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, CANHELP as it was run by my Dad was a cancer information and referral service which spoke of conventional therapies in addition to naturopathic and non-toxic, non-invasive therapies. I don't know what it is today as I don't live in the home office any more and have no contact or interest in it. PMM was indeed a science writer who wrote the critically acclaimed "The Youth Doctors" in addition to the best-selling "The Pritikin Program for Diet and Exercise", both of which are concerned with scientific subject matter (health/longevity/nutrition).
I agree that that particular edit of Null was CV-ish, which included a long list of the accomplishments - I thought I'd go find the references after getting the map laid out. Next time I'll sandbox it or something. But I reversed your total, blind reversion because there was otherwise good edits in there that were warranted. I'd also suggest, as an editor, trying to see what was being accomplished and attempt to assist realizing the same goal of a fair, balanced, accurate, objective article rather than rip/revert which is essentially needlessly and completely destructive. The null article stood biased for a long time -- where was your mighty pen then? Had you visited it before? Were you aware of how biased it was and how unrepresentative of the total picture it presented?
I apologize for the misuse of the "minor" edit tag.
As to whether CANHELP provides misinformation today I do not know, but that is a libelous statement if untrue.
It appears you yourself have your own biases.
hello 17:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian McGrady ( talk • contribs)
Can someone please give me an opinion on this. There is a physics section on the psychokinesis article which represents the scientific consensus on the subject I.e. physics does not support psychic phenomena. The problem is that an IP keeps adding in fringe references claiming scientists believe quantum physics supports psychokinesis, I have reverted one of his edits already which was sourced to a spiritualist writer. But look at this edit here [29] he has now added and changed a reference to Victor Stenger which is a reliable source but I believe this is misleading because Stenger is very much against psychic phenomena. The source is being used to indicate Olivier Costa de Beauregard believes concepts of quantum mechanics support psychic phenomena but this is a serious fringe position. I think it should be removed as it's misleading to the article. Any thoughts? Goblin Face ( talk) 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
A promotional biography of an Indian homoeopath. Possibly autobiographical. Certainly non-compliant with WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 07:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to find sources that evaluate Citizendium in the past five years and don't declare it a failure. But it's not covered much either, s it's a failure.
But one editor really objects to the idea of using reliable sources to say that - even when no alternative views can be found. See Talk:Larry Sanger. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There has been some problems on this article, Targ has been edit-warring and this time he is deliberately using his account and his IP, please see the latest comments on the talk-page. Goblin Face ( talk) 01:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed that a recent edit has added catastrophist material by the Velikovskian Alfred de Grazia. Does anyone have the time to review the recent expansion of this article? Thanks.
It looks like it might have been copied from here, though I can't be sure which way the copying has been done.-- I am One of Many ( talk) 08:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've started a section at Talk:Biblical Mount Sinai asking how to handle the fringe. Dougweller ( talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Bringing this here as an IP hopper or meat puppet is mass deleting material [30] some of which mentions pseudo-scientific material. Dougweller ( talk) 09:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Phenomenon usually means an empirical event for which there is evidence beyond anecdote.
However, were there other "phenomena" during the Crucifixion of Jesus? Eclipses? Tearing of the Temple Curtain? Perhaps.... they were reported, though there is no corroborating evidence. The term is probably not properly used in our article, and the article also seems to delve into rather tenuous territory with guesses as to what actually occurred and what didn't.
Some users, including Ἀλήθεια ( talk · contribs) and HokieRNB ( talk · contribs), seem convinced that these are well-documented phenomena. This reminds me a lot of the "UFOs as phenomena" wars of some years past.
Help?
Not sure where else to turn. This is a word usage issue and seems vaguely pedantic.
jps ( talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to make the lead of the HIV/AIDS denialism state that the view is non-scientific. An editor (who actually agrees that is non-scientific) thinks we can wait until paragraph two. I strongly believe the first sentence of a fringe or pseudoscientific topic should state that it is such. Bhny ( talk) 23:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've made a few suggestions of alternative wording on the talk page. Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 15:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking this is entirely original research? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a fairly extensive discussion going on at Talk:Jews and Communism, which includes the issue of whether or not the article's subject is WP:FRINGE. Fresh eyes familiar with the policy could be helpful.
-- Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 16:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just restored a large amount of material removed from the article. There's a discussion at the talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 07:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 163#Looking for an opinion on scope of Wikipedia's coverage maybe be relevant to WP:FRINGE. Some sort of way of allowing articles that don't meet our notability requirements. I don' know if the discussion really matters as I don't think it will gain much support, but.... 20:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Just created this as a stub. I've added some sources on the talk page. Note that although this is clearly fringe we need to keep it balanced, not just the skeptics view. Dougweller ( talk) 10:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Fringe writers being used as references on Martin Gardner's article as criticism. A large quote from Colin Wilson has been added as a source [36] which looks undue. There is also a reference being used George P. Hansen (a parapsychologist) for the claim that Gardner endorsed a psychic. Considering Hansen has a record it appears of making things up about skeptics [37] I think the Hansen source should be deleted. It's also self-published. Any thoughts on this? Goblin Face ( talk) 03:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Avaya1 is changing the demographics section of the mentioned article. His/her edits inflate the numbers of Jews in Russia to one million simply because the chief rabbi of Russia estimated so. This is despite the fact that this rabbi's figure isn't accepted by anyone but himself. Khazar ( talk) 23:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It's the estimate of the community itself - he says in the second source that 'we estimate the community is over a million'. This is the head of community, the Chief Rabbi of Russia, and the head of the FJCR. And it has been repeated many times. Objecting to it on the basis that it is a 'fringe theory' is bizarre. How is the official position of the community conceivably counted as a 'fringe theory'? The ~ in front shows that it is a rough estimate. The variety of different estimates can be listed in the infobox (prefaced by the statement: 'different estimates have been given'), but removing the estimate of the community's own officials makes no sense. The reason for the discrepancy is partly that the census asked only nationality, but also depends on whether they are including first or second or third generation Jews (the larger figure is referring to the number of people with Jewish grandparents). Avaya1 ( talk) 15:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
'In the face of ample data pointing to a demographic collapse of Jewish population in the countries comprising the former Soviet Union, wishing thinking persists'. With regard to the Russian Federation, for instance, highly inflated figures purporting to be the "real" number o Jews -ranging from 1,000,,000-2,000,000 to the more fantastical figure of 10 million-continue to circulate online and in the popular press, even as he number of pupils in Jewish schools and the roster of those receiving aid from Jewish charities continue to decline. The problem is exacerbated when erroneous figures find their way into scholarly publications.' Mark Tolts,'Sources for the Demographic Study of the Jews in the Former Soviet Union,' in Uzi Rebhun (ed.) The Social Scientific Study of Jewry: Sources, Approaches, Debates, Institute of Contemporary Jewry. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem/Oxford University Press, Vol. XXV11 2014 pp.160-177, p.172.</
Just a heads-up that IP 184.101.78.153 is trying to add into History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Jews_in_the_revolutionary_movement some of the material deleted as part of Jews and Communism (diff).
See also
and Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia.
Same user has deleted content about Russian anti-semitism from Antisemitism in the Russian Empire ( diff).
Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 11:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
He's not not happy about his Wikipedia article. This may attract more attention to Deepak Chopra so wise eyes, as always, are welcome. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
A response can be found here [38] Goblin Face ( talk) 16:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
In his latest comment, Targ [39] has mentioned someone called Marilyn Schlitz. I have never heard of her before. I had a look and I was surprised she has a Wikipedia article. Appears to be another fringe parapsychologist but she really is not that notable. I can't find any reliable sources. I believe this should be an afd. Any thoughts? Goblin Face ( talk) 01:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
A specific template to tag Unreliable fringe sources was deleted without a valid explanation. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Phrase used once by J. Allen Hynek at a UFO symposium, does it deserve an entire article? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Of possible interest:
jps ( talk) 18:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Mass material being added by a user who has become friendly with Russell Targ to this article, but unfortunately most of it is being sourced to paranormal fringe book by a remote viewer Paul Smith (2005). Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate: America's Psychic Espionage Program - and page numbers are not even given. Paul Smith is a psychic remote viewer and is the owner of a remote viewing company but does not appear to be that notable [40]. I am not opposing that this source cannot be used at all it can but not undue weight, but please see the latest section at the bottom of the article which was added entitled "methodology". There is some extreme fringe claims here all sourced to only Paul's book without any page numbers. I could not find any reliable sources for most of this information either. Lot's of other fringe material has been inserted into the article which seems impossible to verify with reliable sources. Perhaps someone who is well researched in this subject can take a look. Thanks. Goblin Face ( talk) 03:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Should article be trimmed down?
Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 11:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Champ (cryptozoology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I encourage those active at this page to read through this and try to identify which text is actually in line with our policies and which is not. I would wager the majority of the text ought to be removed for some or other violation.
jps ( talk) 19:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I have written a new essay at WP:Scepticism is mainstream covering why scepticism is important in the philosophical and sociological ways that academia works.
Please cite this essay as part of explanations to support WP:FRINGE.
If anyone has any questions comments or editing suggestions, let me know. There are other similar topics that I may also write essays on when I get round to it, so I don't want the essay wandering off topic too much if that topic can be covered elsewhere.
This is partly inspired by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV ( talk · contribs)'s magnificently succinct WP:MAINSTREAM. But this covers primarily what MAINSTREAM means, rather than as a general point.
Barney the barney barney ( talk) 20:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what's going on with this article? :) Goblin Face ( talk) 03:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Given the conversion into Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, we now have a probably abortive proliferation of subcategories which are now the subject of a deletion discussion. In my opinion, the decision to restrict the new category was ill-advised, because it cut loose anyone who wasn't already in one of the extant subcats. I don't see these new subcats as a solution that's going to survive review, because they create the same problem as existed before, only a level down the tree. In the spirit of the rename, I would suggest something like Category:Advocates of fringe physics, and so forth.
But the other problem is that a lot of articles got cut loose and now have no categorization under fringe advocacy at all. Ideas about solving these problems? Mangoe ( talk) 01:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of Fetzer as
WP:FRINGE
|
---|
James H. Fetzer (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
It's a BLP. Article gives much space to explaining subject's various conspiracy theories and fringe views in detail. Seems odd to me that section explaining Reception of these views is missing. Talk page loaded with walls of philosophical rhetoric arguing for only the gentlest of criticism. Eyes and opinions needed. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, you can see the WP:OWN the Fetzer article's up against. One of the hazards when you get out on the fringe is that most people who've ever even heard of Conspiracy Guy X have done so because they're already on the bwahaha bandwagon, and you get articles like the current state of this one. That Fetzer himself keeps coming back to edit it doesn't help much either. Fleenier ( talk) 19:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@Occurring. Well, the
WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff is a problem. And it starts on your own
user page where you rail against
User:Frizzmaz and the witchhunting mob" at
WP:FTN. I don't have to tell you,
that's not a good use of your user page, and it's very off-putting to others. I also think you can see there is agreement among editors that your English language writing skills, as applied to the article text, are less than ideal. There are problems with the article, particularly the Conspiracy theories section. Some of this may be due to confusing grammar. Some of it may be due to undue weight on primary sources. Forget the personal Talk page conflicts for the moment. Are you willing to work with other editors to remedy the problems at the
James H. Fetzer article? When I have a free block of time, I had planned to help do the cleanup work needed. But if you're going to simply revert changes, then I'd rather not waste my time. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 23:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The entirety of a banner atop WP:FRINGE: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. Are Fetzer's views on alleged government conspiracies a mainstream idea. Or are they are minority viewpoint itself? Before LuckyLouie opened this topic on the Fringe noticeboard, I had started on the Fetzer article's talkpage a new section specifically addressing LuckyLouie's concern, but LuckyLouie [ still has not responded in it]. So why did LuckyLouie instead begin a topic on it here on the Fringe noticeboard while confabulating paranoid delusions and outright lies about my editing of the article and activities on the talkpage? Was it to be lucky in inciting a lynch mob of village atheists? Yet LuckyLouie deigned to respond in a different talkpage section when someone proposed deleting most of the Fetzer article. In that section, I posed a curious finding and speculation: The irony of this was that LuckyLouie was the one who called for the elaboration and elucidation of the reception to Fetzer's claims by adding the fringe tag and wholly stating, "Odd that there's no 'reception' or "criticism' for the many fringe theories presented here. Per WP:FRINGE, we need to present how the fringe view differs from mainstream view" [ difference]. When the article really was just a board for Fetzer's conspiracy claims made in primary sources, none of this criticism was being aired [ difference before/after my very first edit at this Fetzer article]. Why does all of this criticism come only once I show—as LuckyLouie urged—the reception of Fetzer's "many fringe theories"? (I already explained that there are not even "many fringe theories presented here" [ here]) Could it be that, actually, I have made Fetzer merely appear not wholly crazy? |
Just a quick note. At this point the section is 47K words long; nearly seven of eight of those words come from just one poster. It's an ineffective strategy. More is not better. As the Fetzer article has just been given a well-deserved trimming addressing the WP:FRINGE problem, there is no need to continue this discussion. Fleenier ( talk) 14:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Mass content being added by a new user. Some of it looks ok but some of the references look fringe. Any thoughts about what to do on this one? Goblin Face ( talk) 22:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This article about allegedly psychic twins is very sad reading and a monument to bad sourcing. Highly promotional tone and lots of "predictions" cited to what someone heard on Coast to Coast or some obscure website, or some obscure podcast, or their own autobiography. Also lots of synthesis connecting their alleged predictions to news reports that supposedly confirm their psychic powers. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
AfD? Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 20:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
... and editors are gaily running around deleting the category from the BLP's of pseudoscientists, and not adding the alternative category "Advocate of Pseudoscience". I suspect that I have missed something in the "ruling" because alcohol, but it ain't right - what can we do? - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 22:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Is 5:2 a 'fad diet'? Or just a 'diet'?
-- Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 14:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I've Teslascope ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. Egregious WP:SYNTH combined with excessive quote-mining leads to a misleading article which seems to serve no purpose other than to mythologise it's purported inventor. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Chiles-Whitted UFO encounter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A nice little unreferenced piece of work. Is this a WP:COPYVIO perhaps of Jerome Clark?
jps ( talk) 18:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Allagash Abductions ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Since 2008, this article has been tagged for problems. Can someone with lots of time find some sources, edit the article, remove th original research, etc?
jps ( talk) 17:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Laredo, Texas UFO crash ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Credulity reigns supreme in the write-up of this UFO crash. I feel like scare quotes should be in the title, in spite of WP:MOS. Help cleaning up this article would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This change was too wordy IMHO. See Talk:Chinese herbology#Simpler wording was better. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"Acupuncture needles are a medical instrument used to cure ailments by the method of withdrawing blood and stimulating certain points on humans and animals by inserting them on specific pressure points of the body." See Traditional Korean medicine#Acupuncture. That is news to me that acupuncture is used to cure ailments. I think that article requires some updating. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"Yamamoto New Scalp Acupuncture". Please have a look at this, WP:FTN folks. TIA. Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 14:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Wigglesworth was a Pentecostal faith healer, an ex-plumber who believed he could cure cancer. His supporters made claims that he made feet grow on someone who had none, and that people were raised from the dead by his preaching. Unfortunately, all the books on the subject are of the credulous type, with not the slightest appearance of critical analysis. I have tried to inject some degree of skepticism and balance in the article, but with difficulty. One editor reverted the point that Wigglesworth had no medical training (he claimed cancer was caused by 'demons'). Fresh eyes would be useful here. -- Rbreen ( talk) 15:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I notice some WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE violations since the push that started two weeks ago; compare with this version. An easy starting place is to restore the New Republic source and accompanying text per WP:PSCI. (I would rather not make that change since the New Republic links to something I wrote.)
The talk page is a bit of a funny farm mess (search for "Hitler"), being dominated by a paid Chopra shill advocate, an editor who was twice topic-banned from Transcendental Meditation, and a sockpuppeteer who wrote an off-wiki declaration of war calling Wikipedia editors "scoundrels" and "pisspoor bastards".
vzaak 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not intend to be unduly negative; I was just trying to describe the situation. By "funny farm" I simply meant "a mess", which is what others have observed on that talk page. The word "shill" has disrespectful connotations, so I have changed it to "advocate". It is not a personal attack to mention that someone who was previously topic-banned for tendentious editing on TM articles is now active on an article related to TM. It is also not a personal attack to mention another editor's personal attacks. vzaak 18:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC: Move criticism up lede?
Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para.
Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 11:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
To avoid the more unpleasant aspects of how discussions about this page have gone in the past, I ask you to provide your limited input: here.
jps ( talk) 17:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I recently corrected and improved some information on the Germany page about the number of people killed during World War II and the Holocaust. Specifically, I included actual numbers and not just "millions". I also added the lower estimates given by the West German Government to the article although the article cited a German accademic ( Rüdiger Overmans) whose page only had one reference on it and his claim to notability seems to be coming up with this high estimate of German soldiers killed during the war. Does including his statistics in the text sound like it's what Wikipedia would called a fringe theory and if so, what should I do? Thanks! Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 15:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonsall UFO.
Sigh. This walled garden needs some more weeders.
jps ( talk) 00:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
UFO sightings in China ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Cleaning up would be a welcome undertaking.
jps ( talk) 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This is the guy who thinks he's he may be the reincarnation of Cayce. I reverted some publicity links earlier today, mainly about a 'Hollywood movie' which seems to be just a dream right now. But after that I caught up with some posts on my talk page and one directed me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Molinaro which points out that being a best-selling author, which he is, doesn't confer notability. The only RS I've found so far that actually discusses him in any depth is a source, [53] and that is just a short paragraph. Can anyone find more or want to work on the article? Dougweller ( talk) 10:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please look at this, over 80 references added but all from the same book? Goblin Face ( talk) 18:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Close encounter (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
IP keeps adding
weird "Transology" stuff. Hynek's first three classifications are notable and cited to reliable enough sources. The rest of the article is a magnet for bizarre cruft from fringe sources. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 01:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Dark Complected Man ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another article linked to the JFK assassination conspiracy theories. The only information that I can found about this person in reliable sources is Louie Steven Witt's testimony about sitting next to a "Negro man". Given the lack of discussion about "Dark Complected Man" or this part of Witt's testimony in secondary reliable sources, should this be redirected to Umbrella Man or put up on Afd? Is anyone else able to find reliable sources about this person? Thoughts? Location ( talk) 02:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Turkey UFO sightings.
I'm going to keep working my way through these slowly.
jps ( talk) 12:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Licorne ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tired light ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne.
The old anti-semetic fringe physics promoter is baaaack.
Please go through the contributions of 96.228.244.95 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to see if there are any problems.
Sympathetic admins who are watching this page may wish to take note.
jps ( talk) 17:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Coyame UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would somebody look at this article and remove all the stuff that isn't reliably sourced? After you do that, will there be anything left?
jps ( talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Fringe New WOrld Order pushing film. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, we are getting very inexperienced editors arguing to keep it with arguments such as "Having seen this film, knowing the content and people featured within. and knowing where it gets seen and the following and controversy it has attracted, i'd say it has definite notability." and " The question whether the film is notable enough for Wikipedia could be answered by more research. There's not doubt in my mind that Brooks is notable. The film follows."(while admitting lack of reviews). Dougweller ( talk) 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)