This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The conspiracy-minded have linked this company, of which George H. W. Bush was a founder, to the CIA and the usual shenanigans. Lengthy quotes from dubious sources. A fresh set of eyes on this would be appreciated. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 09:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This is by the editor who created Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, now at AfD (where it has a couple of fans who insist that it is notable but can't find sources). As a BLP it has some bad sources, eg last.fm. It also simply promotional and pov, eg ", she met Maxim Chyrdakov a young man who as a pilot encountered a UFO. She was asked to exmine him to assertain the thruthfulness of his account. She verified that he appeared genuine". Dougweller ( talk) 10:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
By one of the above editors. Full of New World Order stuff, microchipping people, etc., much of it not relating directly to Smith other than he writes/talks about it. Dougweller ( talk) 05:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Need help with a Turkish POV warrior who keeps adding Paleolithic Continuity, Starostin, Altaic crap that is altogether irrelevant to the article. Has already broken 3RR again. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely sure how to close this, but with the dispute resolution topic opened, I think this would better be resolved there.
♥ Solarra ♥
♪ 話 ♪ ߷
♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Gore Effect ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hard to know whether this is all about fringe theories like global warming conspiracy theories or not, but I thought I'd drop this here anyway since many of you are smarter than the average bear.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect (2nd nomination).
jps ( talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Redstar.
jps ( talk) 23:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Article of Menemen. Massacre on Turks happened in this town under Greek occupation in 1919. Greek sources speak of mutual excesses but a western commission who traveled to the area disagrees. They found it one sided. User:Alexikoua disagrees and is doing revisionism on this page by using one Greek source. [ [4] Adds part about atrocities against Greeks. Then changes the main article link of Menemen massacre into "mutual excesses" in disregard that multiple Western sources named it "one sided". 2. edit [5] Is adding massacres committed on Greeks by Turks while removing or rewording events the other way, rewords sources. Accuses multiple times who disagree with it, wants to ban. I had user reported here [6] with no result. Claims that different sources refer to the same events. Endless biased behavior. Dunderstrar ( talk) 13:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone fix this and move it to there? Thanks. Dunderstrar ( talk) 14:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A men's rights activist is insisting that there are "academic sources" which show that there is a legitimate topic to study regarding "violence against men".
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men.
jps ( talk) 22:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271222 Arkon ( talk) 20:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no accompanying literature about how domestic violence against men is somehow part of structural violence directed against the male gender. It simply doesn't exist.Ok, i don't know if that's true, but so what? That is not the claim being made. You're inventing goalposts and then claiming that we haven't passed them. Again, are there any sources which support your claims - e.g. sources which say "Well, violence against men isn't really a real topic worthy of study unless such violence is directed at the male gender" You keep on waving your hand, where as I have provided copious sources. Where are your sources that defend your claims?? The claims being made are simple.
Unfortunately, your argument is tainted with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, comparisons to extreme groups which don't share my point of view, and most importantly, lacks SOURCES which back up any of the claims you have so far presented. If you want to have a reasoned discussion on this, bring some sources to the table that attack the claims I've put on the table.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 20:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221894285_Sexual_and_gender_based_violence_against_men_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_Congo_effects_on_survivors_their_families_and_the_community Arkon ( talk) 20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Stepping back, I think that one could reasonably have articles such as female rape of men and domestic violence against men, and might want to link them. There are sociological studies on such things, particularly around relative difficulty of access to help. But a LOT of care would be needed, and I'd say that those article should be about 95% based on peer-reviewed and official sources, with not an inkling of MRA allowed in. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
JPS - thank you for reminding me that I had taken the MRA targets off of my watchlist. I see now that the most recent targets of the true believers in "But what about men's rights?" activism are now focused on distorting history. I don't think it's worth arguing with them further here. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Tomwsulcer has been adding fringe material written by a rabbi (source is in Hebrew) to the article
History of the Jews in Nepal under discussion for deletion
here because it doesn't relate to
history
starting with this.
After that was reverted, he restored the following text, still attempting to establish some historical context on the basis of "speculation" about Solomons concubines, etc.
While as an ethnic group and as a people, the Jews have a long history dating back thousands of years, and while Jewish people have dispersed widely throughout the world, with the Jewish diaspora beginning about the sixty century BCE, it is likely that the region in the Himalaya mountains which is known today as Nepal was not one of these places; according to Birnbaum, it is unlikely there was ever a permanent Jewish community there since Nepal was not directly along the Silk Road, and Nepal's rugged terrain and lack of flat roads made the region unsuitable to trade. [1] However, there is speculation that links the first residents of Nepal to descendants of the concubines of Abraham, as well as speculation that early Jewish influence played a role in the origination of the caste system in Nepal and India, and that the etymological roots of the word Brahmin can be traced to early Jewish origins. [1]
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
That statement is not only fringe but potentially highly offensive toward Buddhism and Buddhists everywhere.According to one view, it is possible that the Buddha Mundi who grew up in Nepal and became to be known as The Enlightened One was a genetic descendant of the Jews of the Lost Ten Tribes.
Acupuncture looks to be flaring up again and could use some experienced eyes to keep the article focused on the most reliable research per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the problems are continuing. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
An IP user is adding links to a fringe physics site on "Hertzian radiation" to articles on ionizing radiation, antimatter and radio in general. I've reverted the link additions by 194.242.230.21 ( talk · contribs) as well as removed an ancient and broken link to the guy's old site on History of radio, but I might have missed some, so keep your eyes open. Kolbasz ( talk) 14:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a whitewashing going on at
Daniel Amen. He uses his own made up diagnoses (inconsistent with accepted professional, not supported by research etc) for ADD and claims to use SPECT for diagnosis and evaluation of treatment despite a consensus paper from the medical imaging psychiatry community that says there is no support. Multiple sources point out the lack of scientific support but the article is being edited in such a way that Amen's ideas are presented with undue weight and the mainstream consensus is barely mentioned. Amen's assertions are presented as if true etc. - -
MrBill3 (
talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, this can be explained fairly easily through the effects of hypothermia, particularly paradoxical undressing, but no such material appears in the article, which instead plays up the mystery for all its worth, ignoring the accepted explanations. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)°
It has been claimed that Dubinina was found lying face down in a small stream that ran under the snow and that her external injuries are in line with putrefaction in a wet environment and were unlikely to be related to her death, but photographs of her corpse clearly show her body was found kneeling against a large boulder, away from running water.
Laibow is being pushed into other articles. Does anyone think that this edit] meets WP:UNDUE? Dougweller ( talk) 17:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Does Antimatter comet rank as "fringe"? My gut feeling is that is should be fringe, but perhaps there really is something genuine. (I came across this because there is currently something close to an edit war at Star of Bethlehem about its having an "antimatter comet" explanation.) Feline Hymnic ( talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#SPS being used at Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Dougweller ( talk) 18:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone feel like cleaning this up? It relies heavily on something by "skeptic Peter Rogerson" whhich was on a now defunct personal website and which I can't find. Dougweller ( talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
At first sight the introduction looks strange. Isn't the article suppose to describe what it is about? It also seems excessive to have the word "claims" at the end of the title. It is the main article for the history section of Alien abduction rather than Alien abduction claims. A shorter title seems preferable. 84.106.11.117 ( talk) 02:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This article has a variety of fringy sources and the books are pretty fringy in general. I encourage analysis in seeing if this article qualifies as a fringe theory along with its sources in its deletion review. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 20:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
A unique argument for an external link was made: [18]. Apparently it's in the best interest of Wikipedia to link to a donations notice. Since the AfDs sank, it would be nice if someone would try to find some sources about this in the non-true-believer literature. jps ( talk) 19:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You should always assume good faith WP:AGF. Ok, let's look at how " WP:FRINGE" and " IONS" argumentation by scienceapologist was responded: [20]. Logos5557 ( talk) 23:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Burning on Fort Itaipu Sentinels ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this event notable? If so, can someone clean it up?
jps ( talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a very very very long discussion going on about whether the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent over 550 years, which one historian apparently claims killed more people than any other conflict in human history, is a fringe theory or not. If anyone would like to take a look at this and let the people involved in the conversation know whether or not this counts as a fringe theory or not, it would help things along. Thanks Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 12:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
In the last 24 hours or so, a COI ed and an IP have slashed and burned so much that we now have a brochure, rather than a wiki article. I'd just go back a couple of days before they attacked, but I'm a coward, and thought better minds might take a look. Thanks - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 05:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I checked the edit history. I think we should go back to this version before the counterproductive edits began. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The Trindade Island's UFO ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this notable? If it is, can you help clean it up?
jps ( talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The article name is obviously wrong, so wrong that a redirect is probably not even a good choice. What might work well is if someone spins off the usable content into either UFO#Famous hoaxes or UFO sightings in Brazil#1958. After that, we can just take it to AfD and say that it is only notable enough to include in other articles and the redirect doesn't make sense per WP:ARTICLENAME. jps ( talk) 11:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
More from the same garden. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Ancient Aliens#Detailing the Commentators/Researchers that have participated in this project. Dougweller ( talk) 20:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Serious whitewashing of fringe claims with the assertion that discussion of fringe claims doesn't explicitly reference the subject. Apparent misinterpretation of NPOV and lack of understanding of DUE and FRINGE. Fairly important as dangerous and ineffective fringe theories are presented and any discussion of the mainstream academic consensus on these theories is being excluded. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 00:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor did a huge rewrite of A2 milk. A2 milk seems like a weird marketing gimmick promoting the supposed health effects of this milk. I don't have the energy to argue with the editor. Maybe someone else can explain that we need better sources for this. Bhny ( talk) 03:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Does that make sense?
[25].
jps ( talk) 13:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, it is the opinion of many Christians that questioning whether an event that is only attested to in the Book of Matthew and nowhere else is an anti-religious POV. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#Attempt to categorize New Testament events as fictional. That together with MRA advocacy makes this whole business difficult to navigate. jps ( talk) 18:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The academically well-regarded Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible contains a 2-paragraph article on the subject. It acknowledges Matthew as the sole source for this particular story, but also mentions the generally-trusted Josephus "does recount similar instances of Herod's violence and paranoia." That article also states the "total number could not have been more than 20 boys under the age of two." It also mentions similar events in the OT. There is no mention of the tale being a myth, but there are in that source indicators that the story may have been overplayed and exaggerated, maybe beyond recognition. Having said that if reference sources on mythology, none of which I have access to today, call it a myth, clearly we can too. John Carter ( talk) 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
A lot of fringe claims keep being re-inserted into this article. Deepak Chopra being cited as consciousness surviving death from a quantum soul. I think the fringe claims should be removed. Let me know what you think. Goblin Face ( talk) 17:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
A fringe proponent who allegedly attempted to weigh the soul of animals, his paper published in a paranormal journal. Only fringe sources on the article apart from Mary Roach's book but she only discusses him on one page of her book. An internet search reveals nothing. I don't think this guy is notable enough to have an entire page on Wikipedia about him. Goblin Face ( talk) 17:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
In all fairness, the article Navalia is utterly insignificant. It is about a place (polis/oppidum) mentioned once by Ptolemy in the Geographia and that's all the mentions in classical literature. At some point one "Willem Mateboer" (not a historian, AFAIK) [26] associated this Navalia (there are others, like wharfs on the Tiber river mentioned by Livy) with the Dutch town of Genemuiden. This suggestion was followed by Rolf1981 ( talk · contribs) when he created the article. This was removed by Notum-sit ( talk · contribs) at which point a (slowmotion) editwar ensued, mirroring (in a mild form) the goings on on the Dutch Wiki.
The "source" used is a 17th century map by Isaac Tirion, which, obviously is not a RS for associating any Roman name with any town. This has been explained to Rolf1981 on the dutch wiki. Also a book called "Excerpta Romana" is mentioned and though it does mention Navalia, it provides no link to Genemuiden. Another important point seems to be the association of this Navalia with the nabalia flumen (the river Nabalia) mentioned by Tacitus ( Historiae V, 26). There is, however, no evidence that the two are linked in any way.
Earlier this year I bacame aware of this article and found it nonsense, since Genemuiden does not have any archeology at all from Roman times. I decided to rewrite the articles (on both wiki's) to reflect what little is known and provided ample sources. Afterwards a slow-motion editwar started (and still continues) between me (trying to keep the nonsense out) and a couple of anons trying to get it back in. I'm confident at least some of these IP-addresses are in fact Rolf1981, since he cannot resist poking his nose at me on nl.wiki. Some might be meatpuppets.
I am not eager to get a 3RR-warning or engage in an editwar, however slow it is. Please advise. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 14:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a couple questions about how to approach content related to L. Fletcher Prouty. First, the article states:
I am unable to find any reference to this in what would normally be considered "reliable sources". There is a YouTube interview of him in which he does state this, but there is none of the usual information provided about who interviewed him, where he was interviewed, or when he was interviewed: [30]. Secondly, should The Secret Team and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy be redirected to the article on Prouty? I am unable to find enough information for the independent notability required in WP:NBOOK. - Location ( talk) 15:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Revisit the question of the name of the article
Please add an even number of pennies, if you would.
jps ( talk) 00:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The article is asserting some dubious/fringe concepts as fact, and the sourcing is scratchy at best. Wondering if this is salvageable? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see ANI NB and 3RR NB. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 14:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The AFD discussion has started. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myofascial meridians. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Falun Gong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I found a number of instances where "science" was mentioned in the article including a peculiar claim that qi energy had been scientifically measured and that the pseudoscientific nature of the teachings of this religion was somehow an example of political machination rather than identifying claims that simply have no empirical basis. I wonder if this article should be reassessed at the very least.
jps ( talk) 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Tips. This will be the 3rd AfD of articles created by the same editor. Dougweller ( talk) 11:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
A fringe journal's conclusion that some anomalous UFO thing happened is being given equal footing to NASA's explanation that it was only some ice particles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
My search with hypens had given this. What makes you think that, New Frontiers in Science is not a reliable source? Should you volunteer to list it in reliable sources noticeboard, there arises a considerable possibility to increase the number of opinions. Logos5557 ( talk) 08:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Plait's book is an independent reliable source, which determines the notability of this controversy, as outlined in WP:FRIND. The analyses published by the organization, which is identified as fringe by some, can serve as additional sources. The above mentioned opinion that those analyses establishing the notability can be given up, on the grounds that those analyses came after the very first controversy between Kasher and Oberg (and perhaps authors of the analyses were also aware of Plait's book as well), which practically means that notability had already been established beforehand when those analyses were published. Logos5557 ( talk) 11:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Pseudoscience.
I don't think ArbCom should be dictating content. YMMV. Feel free to comment.
jps ( talk) 15:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1976 Canary Island UFO sighting.
jps ( talk) 15:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs (2nd nomination).
Note that this article has been tagged for improvement since it survived its last AfD in 2009.
jps ( talk) 04:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a hard time figuring out what makes this particular UFO case notable. It's true that UFO believers tend to fawn over the accounts of pilots, military officers, and other professionals, but that does not to me seem a reasonable justification in light of our policies. Additionally, the article seems very overlong. jps ( talk) 00:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I would say, the coverage in
List of UFO sightings would be enough. Haven't checked all the references (majority of which do not seem RS), but the
first one makes this case barely notable. Traffic statistics seems
suffering interestingly high compared to
roswell. Should definitely be summarized; personally I do not have the motivation to deal with though.
Logos5557 (
talk) 12:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for their input. On the basis of this discussion, I have started this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter. jps ( talk) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
PhiChiPsiOmega (a user in the past who has caused trouble on parapsychology talk pages) and Brian Josephson both soapboxing on the Dean Radin talk page trying to cause arguments about "skeptics" and their own beliefs about parapsychology. Nothing they say has anything to do with the article. Any eyes on this would be helpful. Goblin Face ( talk) 09:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be perfectly on order for the article to say something like 'one of bdj's interests is parapsychlogy, a subject regarded by some scientists as pseudoscience', quoting a source that doesn't mention me. You seem for some reaaon to have problems seeing this. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 14:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)It is like me going onto the Brian Josephson article and using a science paper claiming parapsychology is a pseudoscience, even though the paper does not discuss you
Looking at this, I don't see how this source is any less reliable than the (probably inappropriate) citation of Steven Novella's blog on the topic. That said, there are clear WP:SYNTH issues here, as the paper doesn't really have anything to do with Dean Radin (other than the fact that it cites one collaboration between Radin and some mainstream scientists. Not sure what the deal is with the article's talk page - it seems like discussion of this issue has been walled off because the "topic has drifted". 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 12:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Just as an FYI - The Zicam [34] article has been nominated for deletion. VViking Talk Edits 21:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
See User talk:Dougweller#Olmecs - comments at Talk:Olmec would be nice, and I'm struggling with the out-dated source at Tyrian purple - looks like no one's paid much attention to it. Dougweller ( talk) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in my edits to three articles; Aztec Calendar Stone, Tyrian Purple and the Olmec articles. Primarily I want to learn to create Author Profiles. I was encouraged to 'edit' before I 'create' new articles. My primary but not exclusive genre of authors is relative to their academic books on ancient historical mysteries such as Atlantis. I myself am not a scholar on these subjects but I thought I could add to the body of information provided in the sub topics throughout Wikipedia as my 'learning the ropes' entrance. I have read the Wiki pages above and recognize room for improvement even with my minor edits. I suspect I will get many 'bumps' from others, you, on Fringe theories as the entire genre of ancient history mysteries is in essence Fringe theories based on scientific analysis of artifacts. You comments to assist me in my development as an editor are most welcome. Thank you, Peggy Morin-Vilhauer ( talk) 16:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Peggy Morin-Vilhauer
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyame UFO incident (2nd nomination)
I keep working my way through this. Eventually we will have a well-curated list. But we're not there yet.
jps ( talk) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This edit [35] seems to be yet another attempt to add fringe material to this article. So far as I can see from the sources, this violates WP:UNDUE (note that the article for Rima Laibow was deleted at AfD and the article for Scott Tips looks like going the same way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This article seems to be overly sympathetic to the discredited theory. Bhny ( talk) 17:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I missed the fact that this had been recreated with a different name and thus missed the AfD. It just was closed as Keep, but the article is a mess. Dougweller ( talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Addition of reams of poorly-sourced POV-pushing tinfoil-hattery... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1892 "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- Lord Kelvin 84.106.11.117 ( talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Claimed thrust machine EmDrive. Needs some real attention, particularly the use of poorly peer reviewed chinese journals. It's full of original research, citing a 1952 article for large sections, Second Quantization ( talk) 20:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
And now this: Talk:EmDrive#Pseudophysics. jps ( talk) 04:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Or so I believe. YMMV.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of arguments for a young Earth
jps ( talk) 14:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd drop this here, but it may be more appropriate at WT:FRINGE. If so, please give it a move over there. Thanks.
Wikipedia has been moving more and more toward adopting a presumption of null hypotheses when it comes to WP:FRINGE material. This also explains situations where we preference material that is skeptical over credulous (see WP:FRIND, for example).
I wonder if it might be possible to shore up this emerging characteristic.
jps ( talk) 04:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Those familiar with the website might be interested in Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#spartacus-educational.com. Location ( talk) 16:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Zhi Gang Sha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article requires cleanup. Not sure if it is notable. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a dispute over at Talk:Jacob Barnett#Specific details concerning the extent to which the WP:FRINGE guideline applies to claims made in the tabloid media about the subject of the article. The article was the subject of a recent AfD. In the analysis of one editor ( User:Agricola44) at that debate, most of the stories on the subject contained questionable claims, like that Barnett had disproved Einstein's theory of relativity, disproved the Big Bang, was tipped for a Nobel Prize, and so on. There is an editor, Viewfinder ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), over at that discussion page who doggedly denies that such claims were made in the press, despite obvious consensus to the contrary. So as to avoid any appearance of stacking the deck, here is a small selection direct quotes from news articles concerning the subject:
Now, it seems to most editors over there that the mandate of the neutral point of view policy is that, in light of such fringe claims, to assert that they did not hold up under scrutiny. There is at least one secondary critical source on the subject, a blog post by Phil Plait (aka "Badastronomer"), on the matter, available at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/08/a-very-smart-kid-and-a-solid-theory/, that we cite as clear evidence of this assertion. There is another source authored by Steve Novella that we do not cite because it is a self-published source, but that also gives critical commentary on claims made in the media, available here.
I am referring the matter here, because the editor in question seems absolutely to refuse to get the point, starting new discussions with the same old arguments that have already been solidly rebutted by other editors (myself, Agricola44, and User:David Eppstein). Given this persistence, there is very little involved editors can do, and I think it is necessary to involve the wider community in this matter. There was already a thread on ANI a few days ago (in my opinion premature). But since that thread, Viewfinder's continued stubbornness leads me to think that the time for community involvement and possible sanctions has gotten much closer. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Involved editors: This is not ANI. Please take this discussion back to Talk:Jacob Barnett, particularly since Viewfinder stated he/she will not be editing the material in question. Location ( talk) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a debate on this talk-page about a positive review for Radin's book in a fringe journal and if it should be used on the article or not. Any comments, suggestions etc needed. Thanks. Goblin Face ( talk) 17:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article about a fringe-theory promoting book. References are difficult to trace but appear to be only tangentially related to the subject. The article reads like a WP:ADVERT and it's dense, overlong prose gives undue weight to the claims of it's author. -- Salimfadhley ( talk)
California Naturopathic Doctors Association ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I just tagged this stub article with CSD-A7. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi All,
It dawns on me that our current system for notifying this board of every AfD is a bit cumbersome. Maybe it would be easier if we had a Fringe Deletion Discussions category and then had an automated list generated at the top of the board? We could then continue to discuss cases where the person wasn't sure whether AfD was appropriate or not.
jps ( talk) 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Another private fringe-theory promoting organization. There seems to be absolutely no references to validate the claims in the article beyond a listing on 'HLC' which appears to be a privately run directory of colleges. I've tagged WP:N but suspect that this could be an AFD candidate. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a BLP of the founder of GATA, a fringe group that has been a major purveyor of conspiracy theories among gold bugs. There has been a persistent and ongoing effort by gold bugs to create and edit articles in ways that promote their views. This appears to be another example. Any suggestions? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The article has been heavily edited and I believe now passes NPOV. Suggest closing this discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Another WP:BLP about a homoeopath. As with the previous examples, the claims to notability rest almost entirely on self-published and fringe sources. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is another AFD in which the question seems to rest entirely on whether the winner of a Right Livelihood Award is inherently notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrikrishna Upadhyay. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 11:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Article about "a secret committee of scientists, military leaders, and government officials" that investigated flying saucers. It appears that there is coverage of this in reliable sources (e.g. this book is from an academic source; primary source documentation from the FBI... note "BOGUS"" handwritten over some of the documents), but the article contains quite a few fringe sources and I'm not sure that primary source documentation has been used properly. Location ( talk) 17:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two sections near the bottom of this article. The parapsychology section is filled with fringe sources (paranormal books and psychical papers) and the science section has fringe claims of parapsychologists like Raymond Moody being cited as scientists, sourced to YouTube videos. There is also Robert Lanza's fringe view about immortality being cited. I think most of this should be removed. Let me know any suggestions about this. Goblin Face ( talk) 18:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Kindly review my proposal at the WP:N talk-page to restructure the notability guidelines for fringe topics. The rationale behind my change is to make it easier for editors to find the relevant notability guidance for fringe topics which is somewhere buried within WP:FRINGE and not linked to from WP:N as most users might expect. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject Appears to be a private alt-med clinic with absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability other than a somewhat grandiose sounding name. I've tagged it WP:N, however I suspect that this may be a quick AFD. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
SuperCmag ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an article that I think probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperConsciousness Magazine. The same use than proceeded to spam that magazine to a variety of articles.
jps ( talk) 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI: In Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#whowhatwhy.com, I've posted a question on how Russ Baker's WhoWhatWhy may be used in Umbrella Man (JFK assassination). Thanks! Location ( talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franck Gordon - created a few years ago by a relative and edited presumably by himself. Dougweller ( talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
And another biographical article about a fringe-theory promoter: This article may be an AFD candidate: I can see no evidence of notability even within esoteric subject of homoeopathy. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Another article about a living fringe theory proponent with very little coverage outside homeopathic or esoteric literature. The best article about him contains a summary of ideas which appear to be an expansion of the homoeopathic concept of 'miasms'. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajan Sankaran (3rd nomination) - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Reads like a advert for this fringe theory promoting school. I spot-checked some of the sources in the 'press' section which mostly seem to be only tangentially about the subject, those that still existed on the Internet appeared to be little more than articles published by individuals who are associated with the school. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've done enough digging without any luck. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Mexico School of Natural Therapeutics. jps ( talk) 23:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone using Krippner's name (could be Krippner himself) has turned up deleting reliable references and adding in parapsychology journals. This may turn into what happened on Russell Targ, so perhaps people can help watch this one. Goblin Face ( talk) 20:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this is fringe but I think it is. We have an editor adding their own research (which seems to be something he doesn't understand at all although he says he's read WP:NOR to this article, adding their own parallels between Exodus passages and the Ipuwer papyrus. [43] Dougweller ( talk) 05:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Here it is! Ann Druffel and not a single reference!? Goblin Face ( talk) 16:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This article needs reliable sources for some of it's claims. Does anyone have any suggestions? I have done a few searches and found nothing of any value. Goblin Face ( talk) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I came across Rajesh Shah when I saw that new editor had linked to it from Life Force Homeopathy Clinics. I tried to verify the sources, but most of them are dead links or irrelevant pages. The only one that checked out was this one from the Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy". I would like second opinions on this reliability of this source and the notability of the subject. Thank you.- Mr X 13:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Falcon Lake incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
What are your thoughts?
jps ( talk) 15:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay then: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon Lake incident. jps ( talk) 03:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Leonard Horowitz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This to me looks like a case where a WP:FRINGEBLP is not warranted. I note that more than a few of the sources in the article don't even mention the person! However, I thought I'd put the case here before sending it off to deletion school just in case people know of some sourcing of which I'm not aware.
jps ( talk) 15:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
And so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Horowitz (2nd nomination). jps ( talk) 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
In 1964, Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden was imprisoned on bribery charges. Bolden tried to weasel out of it by claiming the charges were trumped-up because he was going to speak to the Warren Commission; he later took a kernel of truth regarding a potential threat by an individual and claimed that he had knowledge of a wider conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy in Chicago. The Warren Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations said "bulls**t", but various conspiracy authors over time have unsurprisingly chosen to believe Bolden. Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy appears to have been built by User:Podiaebba upon those sources, as well as a few mainstream sources that also took Bolden's allegations at face value when he was promoting his book in 2007. According to the talk page, User:Ad Orientem challenged this as an alleged incident, but the challenge appears to have fizzled and the article continues to present Bolden's allegations as fact.
Should this redirect to the section entitled " Allegations of a Chicago plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy" within Abraham Bolden? I have spent a fair amount of time reworking that article, but I have left the lede alone until this can be resolved. Thanks! Location ( talk) 10:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't appear notable to me, but maybe it does to you?
jps ( talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
And, I should have mentioned, there's a little walled garden: Troll (singer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Rover (band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). jps ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Paradigm Films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (singer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rover (band). jps ( talk) 02:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Some strange fringe suggestions on the parapsychology talk-page. Any commentary on this appreciated. Goblin Face ( talk) 11:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Stuff I made up in school one day, it seems. But maybe not. If you can rescue it, please be my guest! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious symbolism of unity of opposites.
jps ( talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be and mixed up with anti-vax some and questionable dietary concepts, but the fringe nature of the concepts here wasn't (and still isn't) properly apparent. More eyes welcome ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The minimal content on Aggregate Nutrient Density index could be merged to Fuhrman, Nutritarian could be made a redir to Fuhrman also. Then Fuhrman's article could be cleaned up. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Needs eyes, just found an editor allegedly fixing pov issues by adding " Some see the work as pseudohistory because it has experienced a great deal of contempt and ridicule from orthodox historians and mainstream theorists." Which doesn't even make sense and is not true. Dougweller ( talk) 11:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Trikasthanas (astrology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article appears to make no sense at all. That's probably because it deals with one of the more outré aspects of tantric astrology, or it could just be a massive hoax. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Aditya soni ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was just going through the contributions of this user. This editor seems to have contributed a large number of articles about Indian Astrology, all are written in the same excessively dense style as Trikasthanas (astrology). All that I saw are weakly sourced and present fringe theories as fact. Would any editors care to scrutinize this user's work? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me that this discussion is better held at ANI where it has been raised with a view to stopping the editor from creating new articles. That discussion seems to me to pre-empt any discussion here. While we have no obvious concept of seniority of noticeboards, one with the direct power to sanction an editor seems to me to take logical precedence over one that may wish to do it.
It appears from the outside that this is a 'my religious nuttery is better than thy religious nuttery' discussion, concealed in a procedural discussion about a reasonably large number of articles created by a prolific editor who writes in arcane English and whose referencing may or may not be imperfect for some or all of the time. That editor has now joined the discussion at ANI with words showing calm contemplation of the matter at hand.
If this is a matter of article quality then that can be addressed in the usual way, ranging from improvement where possible to deletion where necessary. There is no time limit on this. If it means work, so be it. If there are few who will do this work, so be it.
If this is a matter of article quantity then we need to take a long inward look. I would like to be as productive! I wonder how the editor in question does it! Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
begins thus:
Starting in the 1930s, as physics, chemistry and biology were maturing as sciences, a number of scientists proposed thoughtful perspectives on the nature of life ...
This seems a very curious and newish (June 2014) article giving often unsourced or poorly-sourced summaries of some variously odd notions about life. I think the article is essentially not encyclopedic. What say you? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 12:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
If there is anything worth saving it can be merged otherwise the page should be removed from mainspace. I recommend userfy it or AFD. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Possibly of interest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horerczy. Apparently this is a creature that breathes out Alps in the form of butterflies. No evidence for its folkloric existence has yet been found except in the writing of this person. Paul B ( talk) 18:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"The Ropen is a flying cryptid[1] alleged to live in the vicinity of Papua New Guinea.[2] According to the second edition of the book Searching for Ropens, it is "any featherless creature that flies in the Southwest Pacific, and has a tail-length more than 25% of its wingspan," but according to the third edition of that book, it is "A modern pterosaur with Rhamphorhynchoid characteristics."
Page could probably use some eyeballs... Followed by (at the least) a few whacks with the reality stick.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ropen - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Rosemary Willis was a 10-year old witness to the assassination of JFK. Voluminous as the Warren Commission report was, Rosemary's name appears in it only once and that is in a brief mention by Phillip Willis, her father, during his testimony (see page 596 of Appendix VII). Investigating the possibility of a gunman on the "grassy knoll shooter", the HSCA gave her three paragraphs (see page 7 of Appendix XII). In addition to that primary source material, I found two reliable secondary sources quoting her belief in a conspiracy (i.e. 1978 Texas Monthly article, 1979 UPI article) and another that touches on her movements in the Zapruder film ( 1993 article by Gerald Posner in US News & World Report). The rest appear to be from fringe sources quoting her or analyzing her movements. I also found her name mentioned in sources unrelated to the assassination (i.e. the obituaries of family members and legal documents), but I'll omit them from this post for privacy reasons. Question: Is this person notable enough for a stand alone article? BTW, lost in all of this is Rosemary Willis (Miss Virginia). Location ( talk) 04:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
This article might have to be redirected to astral projection. Cannot find any reliable sources. Let me know if anyone knows of any? Would a redirect be appropriate here? Goblin Face ( talk) 19:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Just ran into this. Seems to be just a propaganda piece. Eg "Doug Rokke is a former Army Reserve Major who enlisted in 1967. He considers it his patriotic duty to tell the world aboput the dangers of depleted uranium has posed to the servicemen and the public. He also talks about the military coverup about the thousands of affected veterans". Rokke for instance is some sort of "truther" who participates in neo-Nazi conferences. [52] (Nordwave is an American National Socialist organization created in 2000 by Alex Hassinger.). User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret is another conspiracy theorist - see her website [53] - which I note says she also worked on mind control for HAARP. Joyce Riley is also a believer in a massive coverup. [54] [55]. Dougweller ( talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll get the ball rolling:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Treason.
jps ( talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lewis (film director). - Location ( talk) 03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Last one standing? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site. jps ( talk) 23:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It's an NPOV train wreck. If there are three sentences in this allegedly encyclopedic article that offer any balance to the catalog of fringe theories offered up, I couldn't find them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on reverting this once well-cited article to this version? Location ( talk) 20:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this guy notable? He seems to have written his own article. Dougweller ( talk) 19:23, 19 August 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. |
The conspiracy-minded have linked this company, of which George H. W. Bush was a founder, to the CIA and the usual shenanigans. Lengthy quotes from dubious sources. A fresh set of eyes on this would be appreciated. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 09:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This is by the editor who created Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, now at AfD (where it has a couple of fans who insist that it is notable but can't find sources). As a BLP it has some bad sources, eg last.fm. It also simply promotional and pov, eg ", she met Maxim Chyrdakov a young man who as a pilot encountered a UFO. She was asked to exmine him to assertain the thruthfulness of his account. She verified that he appeared genuine". Dougweller ( talk) 10:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
By one of the above editors. Full of New World Order stuff, microchipping people, etc., much of it not relating directly to Smith other than he writes/talks about it. Dougweller ( talk) 05:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Need help with a Turkish POV warrior who keeps adding Paleolithic Continuity, Starostin, Altaic crap that is altogether irrelevant to the article. Has already broken 3RR again. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely sure how to close this, but with the dispute resolution topic opened, I think this would better be resolved there.
♥ Solarra ♥
♪ 話 ♪ ߷
♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Gore Effect ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hard to know whether this is all about fringe theories like global warming conspiracy theories or not, but I thought I'd drop this here anyway since many of you are smarter than the average bear.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect (2nd nomination).
jps ( talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Redstar.
jps ( talk) 23:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Article of Menemen. Massacre on Turks happened in this town under Greek occupation in 1919. Greek sources speak of mutual excesses but a western commission who traveled to the area disagrees. They found it one sided. User:Alexikoua disagrees and is doing revisionism on this page by using one Greek source. [ [4] Adds part about atrocities against Greeks. Then changes the main article link of Menemen massacre into "mutual excesses" in disregard that multiple Western sources named it "one sided". 2. edit [5] Is adding massacres committed on Greeks by Turks while removing or rewording events the other way, rewords sources. Accuses multiple times who disagree with it, wants to ban. I had user reported here [6] with no result. Claims that different sources refer to the same events. Endless biased behavior. Dunderstrar ( talk) 13:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone fix this and move it to there? Thanks. Dunderstrar ( talk) 14:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A men's rights activist is insisting that there are "academic sources" which show that there is a legitimate topic to study regarding "violence against men".
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men.
jps ( talk) 22:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271222 Arkon ( talk) 20:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no accompanying literature about how domestic violence against men is somehow part of structural violence directed against the male gender. It simply doesn't exist.Ok, i don't know if that's true, but so what? That is not the claim being made. You're inventing goalposts and then claiming that we haven't passed them. Again, are there any sources which support your claims - e.g. sources which say "Well, violence against men isn't really a real topic worthy of study unless such violence is directed at the male gender" You keep on waving your hand, where as I have provided copious sources. Where are your sources that defend your claims?? The claims being made are simple.
Unfortunately, your argument is tainted with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, comparisons to extreme groups which don't share my point of view, and most importantly, lacks SOURCES which back up any of the claims you have so far presented. If you want to have a reasoned discussion on this, bring some sources to the table that attack the claims I've put on the table.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 20:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221894285_Sexual_and_gender_based_violence_against_men_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_Congo_effects_on_survivors_their_families_and_the_community Arkon ( talk) 20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Stepping back, I think that one could reasonably have articles such as female rape of men and domestic violence against men, and might want to link them. There are sociological studies on such things, particularly around relative difficulty of access to help. But a LOT of care would be needed, and I'd say that those article should be about 95% based on peer-reviewed and official sources, with not an inkling of MRA allowed in. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
JPS - thank you for reminding me that I had taken the MRA targets off of my watchlist. I see now that the most recent targets of the true believers in "But what about men's rights?" activism are now focused on distorting history. I don't think it's worth arguing with them further here. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Tomwsulcer has been adding fringe material written by a rabbi (source is in Hebrew) to the article
History of the Jews in Nepal under discussion for deletion
here because it doesn't relate to
history
starting with this.
After that was reverted, he restored the following text, still attempting to establish some historical context on the basis of "speculation" about Solomons concubines, etc.
While as an ethnic group and as a people, the Jews have a long history dating back thousands of years, and while Jewish people have dispersed widely throughout the world, with the Jewish diaspora beginning about the sixty century BCE, it is likely that the region in the Himalaya mountains which is known today as Nepal was not one of these places; according to Birnbaum, it is unlikely there was ever a permanent Jewish community there since Nepal was not directly along the Silk Road, and Nepal's rugged terrain and lack of flat roads made the region unsuitable to trade. [1] However, there is speculation that links the first residents of Nepal to descendants of the concubines of Abraham, as well as speculation that early Jewish influence played a role in the origination of the caste system in Nepal and India, and that the etymological roots of the word Brahmin can be traced to early Jewish origins. [1]
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
That statement is not only fringe but potentially highly offensive toward Buddhism and Buddhists everywhere.According to one view, it is possible that the Buddha Mundi who grew up in Nepal and became to be known as The Enlightened One was a genetic descendant of the Jews of the Lost Ten Tribes.
Acupuncture looks to be flaring up again and could use some experienced eyes to keep the article focused on the most reliable research per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the problems are continuing. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
An IP user is adding links to a fringe physics site on "Hertzian radiation" to articles on ionizing radiation, antimatter and radio in general. I've reverted the link additions by 194.242.230.21 ( talk · contribs) as well as removed an ancient and broken link to the guy's old site on History of radio, but I might have missed some, so keep your eyes open. Kolbasz ( talk) 14:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a whitewashing going on at
Daniel Amen. He uses his own made up diagnoses (inconsistent with accepted professional, not supported by research etc) for ADD and claims to use SPECT for diagnosis and evaluation of treatment despite a consensus paper from the medical imaging psychiatry community that says there is no support. Multiple sources point out the lack of scientific support but the article is being edited in such a way that Amen's ideas are presented with undue weight and the mainstream consensus is barely mentioned. Amen's assertions are presented as if true etc. - -
MrBill3 (
talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, this can be explained fairly easily through the effects of hypothermia, particularly paradoxical undressing, but no such material appears in the article, which instead plays up the mystery for all its worth, ignoring the accepted explanations. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)°
It has been claimed that Dubinina was found lying face down in a small stream that ran under the snow and that her external injuries are in line with putrefaction in a wet environment and were unlikely to be related to her death, but photographs of her corpse clearly show her body was found kneeling against a large boulder, away from running water.
Laibow is being pushed into other articles. Does anyone think that this edit] meets WP:UNDUE? Dougweller ( talk) 17:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Does Antimatter comet rank as "fringe"? My gut feeling is that is should be fringe, but perhaps there really is something genuine. (I came across this because there is currently something close to an edit war at Star of Bethlehem about its having an "antimatter comet" explanation.) Feline Hymnic ( talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#SPS being used at Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Dougweller ( talk) 18:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone feel like cleaning this up? It relies heavily on something by "skeptic Peter Rogerson" whhich was on a now defunct personal website and which I can't find. Dougweller ( talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
At first sight the introduction looks strange. Isn't the article suppose to describe what it is about? It also seems excessive to have the word "claims" at the end of the title. It is the main article for the history section of Alien abduction rather than Alien abduction claims. A shorter title seems preferable. 84.106.11.117 ( talk) 02:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This article has a variety of fringy sources and the books are pretty fringy in general. I encourage analysis in seeing if this article qualifies as a fringe theory along with its sources in its deletion review. -- Immanuel Thoughtmaker ( talk) 20:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
A unique argument for an external link was made: [18]. Apparently it's in the best interest of Wikipedia to link to a donations notice. Since the AfDs sank, it would be nice if someone would try to find some sources about this in the non-true-believer literature. jps ( talk) 19:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You should always assume good faith WP:AGF. Ok, let's look at how " WP:FRINGE" and " IONS" argumentation by scienceapologist was responded: [20]. Logos5557 ( talk) 23:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Burning on Fort Itaipu Sentinels ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this event notable? If so, can someone clean it up?
jps ( talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a very very very long discussion going on about whether the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent over 550 years, which one historian apparently claims killed more people than any other conflict in human history, is a fringe theory or not. If anyone would like to take a look at this and let the people involved in the conversation know whether or not this counts as a fringe theory or not, it would help things along. Thanks Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 12:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
In the last 24 hours or so, a COI ed and an IP have slashed and burned so much that we now have a brochure, rather than a wiki article. I'd just go back a couple of days before they attacked, but I'm a coward, and thought better minds might take a look. Thanks - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 05:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I checked the edit history. I think we should go back to this version before the counterproductive edits began. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The Trindade Island's UFO ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this notable? If it is, can you help clean it up?
jps ( talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The article name is obviously wrong, so wrong that a redirect is probably not even a good choice. What might work well is if someone spins off the usable content into either UFO#Famous hoaxes or UFO sightings in Brazil#1958. After that, we can just take it to AfD and say that it is only notable enough to include in other articles and the redirect doesn't make sense per WP:ARTICLENAME. jps ( talk) 11:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
More from the same garden. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Ancient Aliens#Detailing the Commentators/Researchers that have participated in this project. Dougweller ( talk) 20:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Serious whitewashing of fringe claims with the assertion that discussion of fringe claims doesn't explicitly reference the subject. Apparent misinterpretation of NPOV and lack of understanding of DUE and FRINGE. Fairly important as dangerous and ineffective fringe theories are presented and any discussion of the mainstream academic consensus on these theories is being excluded. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 00:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor did a huge rewrite of A2 milk. A2 milk seems like a weird marketing gimmick promoting the supposed health effects of this milk. I don't have the energy to argue with the editor. Maybe someone else can explain that we need better sources for this. Bhny ( talk) 03:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Does that make sense?
[25].
jps ( talk) 13:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, it is the opinion of many Christians that questioning whether an event that is only attested to in the Book of Matthew and nowhere else is an anti-religious POV. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#Attempt to categorize New Testament events as fictional. That together with MRA advocacy makes this whole business difficult to navigate. jps ( talk) 18:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The academically well-regarded Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible contains a 2-paragraph article on the subject. It acknowledges Matthew as the sole source for this particular story, but also mentions the generally-trusted Josephus "does recount similar instances of Herod's violence and paranoia." That article also states the "total number could not have been more than 20 boys under the age of two." It also mentions similar events in the OT. There is no mention of the tale being a myth, but there are in that source indicators that the story may have been overplayed and exaggerated, maybe beyond recognition. Having said that if reference sources on mythology, none of which I have access to today, call it a myth, clearly we can too. John Carter ( talk) 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
A lot of fringe claims keep being re-inserted into this article. Deepak Chopra being cited as consciousness surviving death from a quantum soul. I think the fringe claims should be removed. Let me know what you think. Goblin Face ( talk) 17:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
A fringe proponent who allegedly attempted to weigh the soul of animals, his paper published in a paranormal journal. Only fringe sources on the article apart from Mary Roach's book but she only discusses him on one page of her book. An internet search reveals nothing. I don't think this guy is notable enough to have an entire page on Wikipedia about him. Goblin Face ( talk) 17:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
In all fairness, the article Navalia is utterly insignificant. It is about a place (polis/oppidum) mentioned once by Ptolemy in the Geographia and that's all the mentions in classical literature. At some point one "Willem Mateboer" (not a historian, AFAIK) [26] associated this Navalia (there are others, like wharfs on the Tiber river mentioned by Livy) with the Dutch town of Genemuiden. This suggestion was followed by Rolf1981 ( talk · contribs) when he created the article. This was removed by Notum-sit ( talk · contribs) at which point a (slowmotion) editwar ensued, mirroring (in a mild form) the goings on on the Dutch Wiki.
The "source" used is a 17th century map by Isaac Tirion, which, obviously is not a RS for associating any Roman name with any town. This has been explained to Rolf1981 on the dutch wiki. Also a book called "Excerpta Romana" is mentioned and though it does mention Navalia, it provides no link to Genemuiden. Another important point seems to be the association of this Navalia with the nabalia flumen (the river Nabalia) mentioned by Tacitus ( Historiae V, 26). There is, however, no evidence that the two are linked in any way.
Earlier this year I bacame aware of this article and found it nonsense, since Genemuiden does not have any archeology at all from Roman times. I decided to rewrite the articles (on both wiki's) to reflect what little is known and provided ample sources. Afterwards a slow-motion editwar started (and still continues) between me (trying to keep the nonsense out) and a couple of anons trying to get it back in. I'm confident at least some of these IP-addresses are in fact Rolf1981, since he cannot resist poking his nose at me on nl.wiki. Some might be meatpuppets.
I am not eager to get a 3RR-warning or engage in an editwar, however slow it is. Please advise. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 14:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a couple questions about how to approach content related to L. Fletcher Prouty. First, the article states:
I am unable to find any reference to this in what would normally be considered "reliable sources". There is a YouTube interview of him in which he does state this, but there is none of the usual information provided about who interviewed him, where he was interviewed, or when he was interviewed: [30]. Secondly, should The Secret Team and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy be redirected to the article on Prouty? I am unable to find enough information for the independent notability required in WP:NBOOK. - Location ( talk) 15:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Revisit the question of the name of the article
Please add an even number of pennies, if you would.
jps ( talk) 00:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The article is asserting some dubious/fringe concepts as fact, and the sourcing is scratchy at best. Wondering if this is salvageable? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see ANI NB and 3RR NB. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 14:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The AFD discussion has started. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myofascial meridians. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Falun Gong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I found a number of instances where "science" was mentioned in the article including a peculiar claim that qi energy had been scientifically measured and that the pseudoscientific nature of the teachings of this religion was somehow an example of political machination rather than identifying claims that simply have no empirical basis. I wonder if this article should be reassessed at the very least.
jps ( talk) 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Tips. This will be the 3rd AfD of articles created by the same editor. Dougweller ( talk) 11:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
A fringe journal's conclusion that some anomalous UFO thing happened is being given equal footing to NASA's explanation that it was only some ice particles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
My search with hypens had given this. What makes you think that, New Frontiers in Science is not a reliable source? Should you volunteer to list it in reliable sources noticeboard, there arises a considerable possibility to increase the number of opinions. Logos5557 ( talk) 08:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Plait's book is an independent reliable source, which determines the notability of this controversy, as outlined in WP:FRIND. The analyses published by the organization, which is identified as fringe by some, can serve as additional sources. The above mentioned opinion that those analyses establishing the notability can be given up, on the grounds that those analyses came after the very first controversy between Kasher and Oberg (and perhaps authors of the analyses were also aware of Plait's book as well), which practically means that notability had already been established beforehand when those analyses were published. Logos5557 ( talk) 11:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Pseudoscience.
I don't think ArbCom should be dictating content. YMMV. Feel free to comment.
jps ( talk) 15:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1976 Canary Island UFO sighting.
jps ( talk) 15:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs (2nd nomination).
Note that this article has been tagged for improvement since it survived its last AfD in 2009.
jps ( talk) 04:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a hard time figuring out what makes this particular UFO case notable. It's true that UFO believers tend to fawn over the accounts of pilots, military officers, and other professionals, but that does not to me seem a reasonable justification in light of our policies. Additionally, the article seems very overlong. jps ( talk) 00:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I would say, the coverage in
List of UFO sightings would be enough. Haven't checked all the references (majority of which do not seem RS), but the
first one makes this case barely notable. Traffic statistics seems
suffering interestingly high compared to
roswell. Should definitely be summarized; personally I do not have the motivation to deal with though.
Logos5557 (
talk) 12:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for their input. On the basis of this discussion, I have started this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter. jps ( talk) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
PhiChiPsiOmega (a user in the past who has caused trouble on parapsychology talk pages) and Brian Josephson both soapboxing on the Dean Radin talk page trying to cause arguments about "skeptics" and their own beliefs about parapsychology. Nothing they say has anything to do with the article. Any eyes on this would be helpful. Goblin Face ( talk) 09:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be perfectly on order for the article to say something like 'one of bdj's interests is parapsychlogy, a subject regarded by some scientists as pseudoscience', quoting a source that doesn't mention me. You seem for some reaaon to have problems seeing this. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 14:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)It is like me going onto the Brian Josephson article and using a science paper claiming parapsychology is a pseudoscience, even though the paper does not discuss you
Looking at this, I don't see how this source is any less reliable than the (probably inappropriate) citation of Steven Novella's blog on the topic. That said, there are clear WP:SYNTH issues here, as the paper doesn't really have anything to do with Dean Radin (other than the fact that it cites one collaboration between Radin and some mainstream scientists. Not sure what the deal is with the article's talk page - it seems like discussion of this issue has been walled off because the "topic has drifted". 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 12:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Just as an FYI - The Zicam [34] article has been nominated for deletion. VViking Talk Edits 21:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
See User talk:Dougweller#Olmecs - comments at Talk:Olmec would be nice, and I'm struggling with the out-dated source at Tyrian purple - looks like no one's paid much attention to it. Dougweller ( talk) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in my edits to three articles; Aztec Calendar Stone, Tyrian Purple and the Olmec articles. Primarily I want to learn to create Author Profiles. I was encouraged to 'edit' before I 'create' new articles. My primary but not exclusive genre of authors is relative to their academic books on ancient historical mysteries such as Atlantis. I myself am not a scholar on these subjects but I thought I could add to the body of information provided in the sub topics throughout Wikipedia as my 'learning the ropes' entrance. I have read the Wiki pages above and recognize room for improvement even with my minor edits. I suspect I will get many 'bumps' from others, you, on Fringe theories as the entire genre of ancient history mysteries is in essence Fringe theories based on scientific analysis of artifacts. You comments to assist me in my development as an editor are most welcome. Thank you, Peggy Morin-Vilhauer ( talk) 16:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Peggy Morin-Vilhauer
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyame UFO incident (2nd nomination)
I keep working my way through this. Eventually we will have a well-curated list. But we're not there yet.
jps ( talk) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This edit [35] seems to be yet another attempt to add fringe material to this article. So far as I can see from the sources, this violates WP:UNDUE (note that the article for Rima Laibow was deleted at AfD and the article for Scott Tips looks like going the same way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This article seems to be overly sympathetic to the discredited theory. Bhny ( talk) 17:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I missed the fact that this had been recreated with a different name and thus missed the AfD. It just was closed as Keep, but the article is a mess. Dougweller ( talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Addition of reams of poorly-sourced POV-pushing tinfoil-hattery... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1892 "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- Lord Kelvin 84.106.11.117 ( talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Claimed thrust machine EmDrive. Needs some real attention, particularly the use of poorly peer reviewed chinese journals. It's full of original research, citing a 1952 article for large sections, Second Quantization ( talk) 20:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
And now this: Talk:EmDrive#Pseudophysics. jps ( talk) 04:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Or so I believe. YMMV.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of arguments for a young Earth
jps ( talk) 14:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd drop this here, but it may be more appropriate at WT:FRINGE. If so, please give it a move over there. Thanks.
Wikipedia has been moving more and more toward adopting a presumption of null hypotheses when it comes to WP:FRINGE material. This also explains situations where we preference material that is skeptical over credulous (see WP:FRIND, for example).
I wonder if it might be possible to shore up this emerging characteristic.
jps ( talk) 04:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Those familiar with the website might be interested in Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#spartacus-educational.com. Location ( talk) 16:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Zhi Gang Sha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article requires cleanup. Not sure if it is notable. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a dispute over at Talk:Jacob Barnett#Specific details concerning the extent to which the WP:FRINGE guideline applies to claims made in the tabloid media about the subject of the article. The article was the subject of a recent AfD. In the analysis of one editor ( User:Agricola44) at that debate, most of the stories on the subject contained questionable claims, like that Barnett had disproved Einstein's theory of relativity, disproved the Big Bang, was tipped for a Nobel Prize, and so on. There is an editor, Viewfinder ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), over at that discussion page who doggedly denies that such claims were made in the press, despite obvious consensus to the contrary. So as to avoid any appearance of stacking the deck, here is a small selection direct quotes from news articles concerning the subject:
Now, it seems to most editors over there that the mandate of the neutral point of view policy is that, in light of such fringe claims, to assert that they did not hold up under scrutiny. There is at least one secondary critical source on the subject, a blog post by Phil Plait (aka "Badastronomer"), on the matter, available at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/08/a-very-smart-kid-and-a-solid-theory/, that we cite as clear evidence of this assertion. There is another source authored by Steve Novella that we do not cite because it is a self-published source, but that also gives critical commentary on claims made in the media, available here.
I am referring the matter here, because the editor in question seems absolutely to refuse to get the point, starting new discussions with the same old arguments that have already been solidly rebutted by other editors (myself, Agricola44, and User:David Eppstein). Given this persistence, there is very little involved editors can do, and I think it is necessary to involve the wider community in this matter. There was already a thread on ANI a few days ago (in my opinion premature). But since that thread, Viewfinder's continued stubbornness leads me to think that the time for community involvement and possible sanctions has gotten much closer. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Involved editors: This is not ANI. Please take this discussion back to Talk:Jacob Barnett, particularly since Viewfinder stated he/she will not be editing the material in question. Location ( talk) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a debate on this talk-page about a positive review for Radin's book in a fringe journal and if it should be used on the article or not. Any comments, suggestions etc needed. Thanks. Goblin Face ( talk) 17:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article about a fringe-theory promoting book. References are difficult to trace but appear to be only tangentially related to the subject. The article reads like a WP:ADVERT and it's dense, overlong prose gives undue weight to the claims of it's author. -- Salimfadhley ( talk)
California Naturopathic Doctors Association ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I just tagged this stub article with CSD-A7. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi All,
It dawns on me that our current system for notifying this board of every AfD is a bit cumbersome. Maybe it would be easier if we had a Fringe Deletion Discussions category and then had an automated list generated at the top of the board? We could then continue to discuss cases where the person wasn't sure whether AfD was appropriate or not.
jps ( talk) 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Another private fringe-theory promoting organization. There seems to be absolutely no references to validate the claims in the article beyond a listing on 'HLC' which appears to be a privately run directory of colleges. I've tagged WP:N but suspect that this could be an AFD candidate. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a BLP of the founder of GATA, a fringe group that has been a major purveyor of conspiracy theories among gold bugs. There has been a persistent and ongoing effort by gold bugs to create and edit articles in ways that promote their views. This appears to be another example. Any suggestions? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The article has been heavily edited and I believe now passes NPOV. Suggest closing this discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Another WP:BLP about a homoeopath. As with the previous examples, the claims to notability rest almost entirely on self-published and fringe sources. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is another AFD in which the question seems to rest entirely on whether the winner of a Right Livelihood Award is inherently notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrikrishna Upadhyay. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 11:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Article about "a secret committee of scientists, military leaders, and government officials" that investigated flying saucers. It appears that there is coverage of this in reliable sources (e.g. this book is from an academic source; primary source documentation from the FBI... note "BOGUS"" handwritten over some of the documents), but the article contains quite a few fringe sources and I'm not sure that primary source documentation has been used properly. Location ( talk) 17:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two sections near the bottom of this article. The parapsychology section is filled with fringe sources (paranormal books and psychical papers) and the science section has fringe claims of parapsychologists like Raymond Moody being cited as scientists, sourced to YouTube videos. There is also Robert Lanza's fringe view about immortality being cited. I think most of this should be removed. Let me know any suggestions about this. Goblin Face ( talk) 18:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Kindly review my proposal at the WP:N talk-page to restructure the notability guidelines for fringe topics. The rationale behind my change is to make it easier for editors to find the relevant notability guidance for fringe topics which is somewhere buried within WP:FRINGE and not linked to from WP:N as most users might expect. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject Appears to be a private alt-med clinic with absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability other than a somewhat grandiose sounding name. I've tagged it WP:N, however I suspect that this may be a quick AFD. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
SuperCmag ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an article that I think probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperConsciousness Magazine. The same use than proceeded to spam that magazine to a variety of articles.
jps ( talk) 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI: In Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#whowhatwhy.com, I've posted a question on how Russ Baker's WhoWhatWhy may be used in Umbrella Man (JFK assassination). Thanks! Location ( talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franck Gordon - created a few years ago by a relative and edited presumably by himself. Dougweller ( talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
And another biographical article about a fringe-theory promoter: This article may be an AFD candidate: I can see no evidence of notability even within esoteric subject of homoeopathy. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Another article about a living fringe theory proponent with very little coverage outside homeopathic or esoteric literature. The best article about him contains a summary of ideas which appear to be an expansion of the homoeopathic concept of 'miasms'. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajan Sankaran (3rd nomination) - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Reads like a advert for this fringe theory promoting school. I spot-checked some of the sources in the 'press' section which mostly seem to be only tangentially about the subject, those that still existed on the Internet appeared to be little more than articles published by individuals who are associated with the school. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've done enough digging without any luck. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Mexico School of Natural Therapeutics. jps ( talk) 23:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone using Krippner's name (could be Krippner himself) has turned up deleting reliable references and adding in parapsychology journals. This may turn into what happened on Russell Targ, so perhaps people can help watch this one. Goblin Face ( talk) 20:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this is fringe but I think it is. We have an editor adding their own research (which seems to be something he doesn't understand at all although he says he's read WP:NOR to this article, adding their own parallels between Exodus passages and the Ipuwer papyrus. [43] Dougweller ( talk) 05:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Here it is! Ann Druffel and not a single reference!? Goblin Face ( talk) 16:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This article needs reliable sources for some of it's claims. Does anyone have any suggestions? I have done a few searches and found nothing of any value. Goblin Face ( talk) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I came across Rajesh Shah when I saw that new editor had linked to it from Life Force Homeopathy Clinics. I tried to verify the sources, but most of them are dead links or irrelevant pages. The only one that checked out was this one from the Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy". I would like second opinions on this reliability of this source and the notability of the subject. Thank you.- Mr X 13:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Falcon Lake incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
What are your thoughts?
jps ( talk) 15:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay then: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon Lake incident. jps ( talk) 03:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Leonard Horowitz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This to me looks like a case where a WP:FRINGEBLP is not warranted. I note that more than a few of the sources in the article don't even mention the person! However, I thought I'd put the case here before sending it off to deletion school just in case people know of some sourcing of which I'm not aware.
jps ( talk) 15:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
And so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Horowitz (2nd nomination). jps ( talk) 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
In 1964, Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden was imprisoned on bribery charges. Bolden tried to weasel out of it by claiming the charges were trumped-up because he was going to speak to the Warren Commission; he later took a kernel of truth regarding a potential threat by an individual and claimed that he had knowledge of a wider conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy in Chicago. The Warren Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations said "bulls**t", but various conspiracy authors over time have unsurprisingly chosen to believe Bolden. Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy appears to have been built by User:Podiaebba upon those sources, as well as a few mainstream sources that also took Bolden's allegations at face value when he was promoting his book in 2007. According to the talk page, User:Ad Orientem challenged this as an alleged incident, but the challenge appears to have fizzled and the article continues to present Bolden's allegations as fact.
Should this redirect to the section entitled " Allegations of a Chicago plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy" within Abraham Bolden? I have spent a fair amount of time reworking that article, but I have left the lede alone until this can be resolved. Thanks! Location ( talk) 10:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't appear notable to me, but maybe it does to you?
jps ( talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
And, I should have mentioned, there's a little walled garden: Troll (singer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Rover (band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). jps ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Paradigm Films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (singer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rover (band). jps ( talk) 02:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Some strange fringe suggestions on the parapsychology talk-page. Any commentary on this appreciated. Goblin Face ( talk) 11:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Stuff I made up in school one day, it seems. But maybe not. If you can rescue it, please be my guest! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious symbolism of unity of opposites.
jps ( talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be and mixed up with anti-vax some and questionable dietary concepts, but the fringe nature of the concepts here wasn't (and still isn't) properly apparent. More eyes welcome ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The minimal content on Aggregate Nutrient Density index could be merged to Fuhrman, Nutritarian could be made a redir to Fuhrman also. Then Fuhrman's article could be cleaned up. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Needs eyes, just found an editor allegedly fixing pov issues by adding " Some see the work as pseudohistory because it has experienced a great deal of contempt and ridicule from orthodox historians and mainstream theorists." Which doesn't even make sense and is not true. Dougweller ( talk) 11:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Trikasthanas (astrology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article appears to make no sense at all. That's probably because it deals with one of the more outré aspects of tantric astrology, or it could just be a massive hoax. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Aditya soni ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was just going through the contributions of this user. This editor seems to have contributed a large number of articles about Indian Astrology, all are written in the same excessively dense style as Trikasthanas (astrology). All that I saw are weakly sourced and present fringe theories as fact. Would any editors care to scrutinize this user's work? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me that this discussion is better held at ANI where it has been raised with a view to stopping the editor from creating new articles. That discussion seems to me to pre-empt any discussion here. While we have no obvious concept of seniority of noticeboards, one with the direct power to sanction an editor seems to me to take logical precedence over one that may wish to do it.
It appears from the outside that this is a 'my religious nuttery is better than thy religious nuttery' discussion, concealed in a procedural discussion about a reasonably large number of articles created by a prolific editor who writes in arcane English and whose referencing may or may not be imperfect for some or all of the time. That editor has now joined the discussion at ANI with words showing calm contemplation of the matter at hand.
If this is a matter of article quality then that can be addressed in the usual way, ranging from improvement where possible to deletion where necessary. There is no time limit on this. If it means work, so be it. If there are few who will do this work, so be it.
If this is a matter of article quantity then we need to take a long inward look. I would like to be as productive! I wonder how the editor in question does it! Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
begins thus:
Starting in the 1930s, as physics, chemistry and biology were maturing as sciences, a number of scientists proposed thoughtful perspectives on the nature of life ...
This seems a very curious and newish (June 2014) article giving often unsourced or poorly-sourced summaries of some variously odd notions about life. I think the article is essentially not encyclopedic. What say you? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 12:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
If there is anything worth saving it can be merged otherwise the page should be removed from mainspace. I recommend userfy it or AFD. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Possibly of interest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horerczy. Apparently this is a creature that breathes out Alps in the form of butterflies. No evidence for its folkloric existence has yet been found except in the writing of this person. Paul B ( talk) 18:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"The Ropen is a flying cryptid[1] alleged to live in the vicinity of Papua New Guinea.[2] According to the second edition of the book Searching for Ropens, it is "any featherless creature that flies in the Southwest Pacific, and has a tail-length more than 25% of its wingspan," but according to the third edition of that book, it is "A modern pterosaur with Rhamphorhynchoid characteristics."
Page could probably use some eyeballs... Followed by (at the least) a few whacks with the reality stick.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ropen - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Rosemary Willis was a 10-year old witness to the assassination of JFK. Voluminous as the Warren Commission report was, Rosemary's name appears in it only once and that is in a brief mention by Phillip Willis, her father, during his testimony (see page 596 of Appendix VII). Investigating the possibility of a gunman on the "grassy knoll shooter", the HSCA gave her three paragraphs (see page 7 of Appendix XII). In addition to that primary source material, I found two reliable secondary sources quoting her belief in a conspiracy (i.e. 1978 Texas Monthly article, 1979 UPI article) and another that touches on her movements in the Zapruder film ( 1993 article by Gerald Posner in US News & World Report). The rest appear to be from fringe sources quoting her or analyzing her movements. I also found her name mentioned in sources unrelated to the assassination (i.e. the obituaries of family members and legal documents), but I'll omit them from this post for privacy reasons. Question: Is this person notable enough for a stand alone article? BTW, lost in all of this is Rosemary Willis (Miss Virginia). Location ( talk) 04:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
This article might have to be redirected to astral projection. Cannot find any reliable sources. Let me know if anyone knows of any? Would a redirect be appropriate here? Goblin Face ( talk) 19:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Just ran into this. Seems to be just a propaganda piece. Eg "Doug Rokke is a former Army Reserve Major who enlisted in 1967. He considers it his patriotic duty to tell the world aboput the dangers of depleted uranium has posed to the servicemen and the public. He also talks about the military coverup about the thousands of affected veterans". Rokke for instance is some sort of "truther" who participates in neo-Nazi conferences. [52] (Nordwave is an American National Socialist organization created in 2000 by Alex Hassinger.). User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret is another conspiracy theorist - see her website [53] - which I note says she also worked on mind control for HAARP. Joyce Riley is also a believer in a massive coverup. [54] [55]. Dougweller ( talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll get the ball rolling:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Treason.
jps ( talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lewis (film director). - Location ( talk) 03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Last one standing? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site. jps ( talk) 23:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It's an NPOV train wreck. If there are three sentences in this allegedly encyclopedic article that offer any balance to the catalog of fringe theories offered up, I couldn't find them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on reverting this once well-cited article to this version? Location ( talk) 20:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this guy notable? He seems to have written his own article. Dougweller ( talk) 19:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)