This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This is one of these edits that involved WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, etc and I never know where to mention them as I don't like going to 2 boards for one edit. But as it mainly involves Answers in Genesis, I'm coming here/ I've been trying to explain to 66.190.249.59 ( talk · contribs) about our policies but they still don't get it.
"In March 2015, Americans United filed a motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed in the state of Kentucky. Americans United is representing, four Kentucky taxpayers, two of whom are Baptist ministers.<ref>http://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/29956-baptist-ministers-oppose-tax-break-for-ark-park</ref> In the lawsuit,<ref>https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/ark/lawsuit-document.pdf</ref> Ark Encounter LLC,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis#Ark_Encounter</ref> the developer of a tourist attraction featuring a life size model of Noah's Ark, is requesting the state of Kentucky approve its application for a tourism incentive program that would offset some of its development costs by deferring sales taxes the theme park itself will generate through its ticket sales. Kentucky governor Steve Beshear also filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Last year a board within the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet that reviews such applications gave preliminary approval of an application seeking $18 million in tax rebates for the $73 million development. But in December Bob Stewart, secretary of the state Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet, rejected the application on final review saying the applicant changed its position on hiring practices and now intended to discriminate in hiring based on religion.<ref>http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/beshear-asks-dismissal-ark-case/70571974/</ref> In their motion Beshear and Stewart said, "Providing the public funding sought for religious purposes ...would constitute an unlawful establishment of religion under the U.S. and Kentucky constitutions." According to its complaint, Ark Encounter LLC, suggests the subject position advertised was not for an employee of Ark Encounter LLC but for a position at Answers in Genesis that is lawfully able to select employees based upon religious beliefs since it is a religious ministry."
The WP:UNDUE bit is because I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this lawsuit which does mention the subject of the article in the media besides the Baptist website. As for sources, we have the Baptist site (mentioning AU & the lawsuit), the Courier-Journal (mentioning the lawsuit but not AU), our Answers in Genesis article which should probably be a wikilink to the Ark Encounter, and a pdf on Answers in Genesis website (and note that even a court document would almost certainly fail WP:RS as a primary source. I don't want the IP to think I'm making this all up or being unfair (they already think I'm following them around, which of course is in a sense true, I found a problem at another article the IP edited and after fixing that looked at other edits). I'll notify the IP now.
And if anyone thinks this should be at another NB, let me know and I'll move it. Dougweller ( talk) 09:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Wickstrom - the sources are entirely promotional and do not point out the rather well-known fact that Narconon is a scam. The article needs to go, or be drastically revised to reflect the reality-based view of the Scientology cult's abusive drug rehab fraud. Guy ( Help!) 15:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
John Lear ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncited biography of a living person who is a UFOlogist and grandson of the inventor of the Lear jet. Does coverage in reliable secondary sources exist or is this one for Afd? - Location ( talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Scientific_papers_listing
Please note that Nigelj has added Sheldrake's reported list of scientific papers to the article as a citation to our first identifier of Rupert Sheldrake as a "scientist". I'm concerned that this list includes many papers which are not strictly scientific. It would be great to get some outside opinions on the matter.
jps ( talk) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, sure, but we obviously can't say that in the first sentence of the article. The question is, "What do we say?" There are competing positions here. One position is credentialism. It is undeniable that Sheldrake has been trained at first-rate institutions and has participated in process science that has been if perhaps not notable then at least what everyone agrees is a normal part of a scientific career. That was decades ago. Now, Sheldrake publishes ideas strictly outside of that framework. That doesn't mean he loses his membership card in the "I am a scientist!" club, but it certainly means that we should think about how this presentation is done. I tried putting in "biologist by training" as a way of explaining this situation, but that was rejected as being somehow demeaning to Sheldrake's background. So we're stuck with this kind of special pleading, but I'm not sure what way out of it there is. We need to be able to get across to the reader that here is a guy who has been trained and has worked professionally as a scientist but who currently works in way that most scientists would describe as "pseudoscientific". That's the game. How Wikipedia does this is not something I've figured out and it certainly isn't being helped by a talkpage that seems to have a number of people who aren't able to see that this actually is the game. jps ( talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks. I request input. QuackGuru ( talk) 08:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Needs more eyes. I've just reverted some edits by an editor who doesn't understand that NPOV doesn't mean we take a neutral stance. Dougweller ( talk) 08:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Quantum mind ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ongoing edit war to insert "Classical physics is a false theory of the world" [1] into the lead. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Once again, an IP pushing Manuel Rosa, informing our readers that Rosa has made a convincing case. I've reverted once but it's back. Dougweller ( talk) 09:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I am seeking a second opinion in Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#On removal of information contained in FBI report. One editor wishes to include material (i.e. that LBJ believed the CIA was involved in assassinating JFK) in the main conspiracy article, but that same material is already in the appropriate sub-article (i.e. CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory). On top of that, the material he wishes to include is not accurately summarized nor is it properly attributed. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 03:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are researching complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and you are not hated by the CAM world, you're not doing it right.
This constitutes evidence that we are, in fact, doing it right. Well done. Guy ( Help!) 07:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A couple editors are telling me my sources are fringe. Walasma dynasty were Argobba. I found several sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (page 14 footnotes). Are these fringe? Zekenyan ( talk)
Shag Harbour UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We should decide whether this particular incident was notable enough. It was investigated by a number of different groups back in the 60s when such investigations were a little more common than they are today. Nothing came of it, though, and it isn't particularly prominent a sighting as far as I can tell.
jps ( talk) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
File:UFO and Meteor Shower over High Desert.jpg has been renamed File:Evening sky over High Desert California.jpg. jps ( talk) 10:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm stepping back from an edit war over this one. Am I right in saying that it needs to have a reliable source calling it a UFO, before putting it in articles and calling it a UFO? Geogene ( talk) 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Pocketthis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ...is the uploader, and has been trying to insert it into a number of articles. We need a RS for Wikipedia to call it "unknown" or "a UFO" or "unidentified". The claim of an uploader isn't sufficient. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
stepping back from this a bit, it seems to me that
Pocketthis is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote his/her photo. Based on
the comment above, he/she has been sending it all over the place. Promotion is not what Wikipedia is for, per
WP:PROMO. If there are reliable sources out there that discuss this photo, I could see the photo getting posted in the UFO article with some content about it, but otherwise it should not be used anywhere else. If there are no RS, then this photo doesn't belong anywhere in WP. And circling back, if there are RS, in my view Pocketthis has a conflict of interest in the matter (see especially
WP:SELFCITE and should not post it directly but should use the
template:edit request function.
Jytdog (
talk) 16:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) (striking, wrong tone
Jytdog (
talk) 22:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC))
Thanks for the explanation Louie. All is well. I agree that we need experts to say exactly what that airborne object is. But don't you see? That is what makes it a UFO. Saying it is a UFO, is just saying we don't know what it is. It implies no extraterrestrial implications. It's just plain "unidentified". I am going to give you the same advice I gave Georgene: Go to the UFO article and read what a UFO is. It will at least end THAT part of this discussion. Almost all UFOs in the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book, have been identified as being due to honest misidentifications of natural phenomena. Read this article here as well: /info/en/?search=Identification_studies_of_UFOs that should clear up any misunderstandings about alien implications. -Thanks- Pocketthis ( talk) 21:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
"Saying it is a UFO, is just saying we don't know what it is."As jps cogently puts it above, that's "an attempt to revert to a previous denotation". I'm sorry, Pocketthis. The reason I'm posting here is that when I clicked idly on your userpage and saw all the great photos you have donated to the encyclopedia, I was really sorry the argument about this one photo has upset you. I don't like to see the unkind suggestions about spamming and self-promotion in this thread either, because I don't think there's anything in them. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ugh. I was not aware that this was a thing until today. Anyway, I think the article could benefit from some people who have experience in mitigating WP:FRINGE issues on Wikipedia having a once-over. The lede, for example, contains some wording that seems peculiarly hedgy to me as if there might be something to the conspiracy theories after all. And then there is the issue of relegating all the factual debunking to an anemic "response" section at the end of the article. I don't think there has been much academic research on these particular folks yet, though the skeptic watchdog groups may have some more points to add (and should be considered as WP:PARITY sources).
Anyway, can we get some help for this?
jps ( talk) 14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Related to this page:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictive programming.
Please comment.
jps ( talk) 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
David Talbott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I tried to get this article deleted a few times unsuccessfully. This is a guy who read Immanuel Velikovsky's work and then decided to do his own amateur speculations on comparative mythology and so-called "catastrophism". The guy wrote a book thirty years ago that argued that 1) Saturn was a brown dwarf a few thousand years ago, 2) it was much closer to the Earth than the Sun at that time, 3) Venus and Mars also orbited Saturn and were basically visible as disks, 4) the Earth orbited Saturn orthogonal to its rotation axis so that the North Pole faced Saturn.
Okay, so we can agree that this is totally bonkers, but the problem is that it is so bonkers that basically no one has bothered to critique the idea. The inappropriately attributed critiques included in the article make it seem that these are one-off problems with this guy's ideas, but since this person is not a famous crank, we don't have a lot of independent sources that mention him. The few we do have are so minor (and, I'll note, only published in fringe journals dedicated to Velikovsky) as to make the article very unbalanced. It doesn't help that this is a WP:FRINGEBLP and so we're stuck trying to evaluate nonsense ideas in a article that is supposed to ostensibly be about the person.
Anyway, I'd like to get some help with this. What should be done?
jps ( talk) 12:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dtalbott/bio notes.
Comments welcome.
jps ( talk) 11:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis.
Comment here too, if you would.
jps ( talk) 11:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
At the very least this BLP needs to be stripped of a lot of questionable info from primary sources controlled by the subject. (How many Yale Law graduates go on to get a "Master of Education in Counseling" from UT?) It's been through AFD once but got a "no consensus". I'm thinking that it might need another, final trip. Mangoe ( talk) 03:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Rodney Stich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rodney Stich is a conspiracy author. The article appears to be built upon fringe and primary sources. I'm not sure that notability can be determined by Conspiracy Encyclopedia. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 13:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Building biology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Opinions about Building biology? It appears to be a set of practices and principles with varying degrees of scientific support, and with an organization behind them. The organization, the practice, and the principles clearly exist, and are probably notable. Should building biology be described as a science? A pseudoscience? An organization? A methodology? An approach to indoor environmental health? A basically mainstream topic wide enough to include a range of opinions? -- Amble ( talk) 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
William Reymond ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
William Reymond is a French conspiracy author, and the BLP's only source is a primary source. Can anyone confirm whether sources, French or otherwise, support notability under WP:AUTHOR? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 21:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Fringe writer, see [17], who has attracted some publicity. He calls himself an archaeologist but clearly isn't one. I did a heavy revert of several edits removing fringe material sourced to him and others at Copper Scroll after finding him boosted at Mount Sinai. He's mentioned in Jordan Lead Codices but at least I can see some reason for that. Holy Lance has had a paragraph about him for years. Dougweller ( talk) 11:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Darryl Anka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guy (related to Paul Anka) claiming to receive messages from a multi dimensional extraterrestrial. Aside from a single story in the Toronto Sun, Anka appears to be unknown outside of the fringe world. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Van Monster Logos ( talk) 21:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
A theological article although with what I think is a fringe aspect, see Talk:Splitting of the moon#Separate Article for the NASA dispute. As you can see, there's a suggestion that the NASA dispute be moved out of the article. Dougweller ( talk) 14:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
HOUSEKEEPING NOTE - This is part of a debate at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) which spilled over to other threads including
Anthony Watts (blogger) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
High-quality scholarly sources that non-trivially discuss this person's blog have characterized it as climate change denialism, obviously a fringe view. [Edit: See the seven sources in the opening sentence of this revision.] However since it is also called a "skeptic" blog by some popular magazines and newspapers -- as well as by some scholarly articles as a synonym for denialism ( explained here) -- we have the problem of a fringe view being portrayed as non-fringe via the context-free use of the word "skeptic". The allusion to scientific skepticism is unfortunate, and indeed there is a source that specifically contrasts the blog with scientific skepticism.
It has hitherto been difficult convincing some editors that a fringe-related article should make use of the high-quality scholarly sources available. Instead, editors have been counting the number of newspapers and other sources that use the term "skeptic". Manul ~ talk 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
...a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as supporting climate change denialism, and that is also called "skeptical". What would this convey to the reader? There would be the implied suggestion that these are opposing viewpoints, when our sources say that they are the same. We might be suggesting scientific skepticism, which is contrary to at least one source.
I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:
Google Scholar Totals:
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is an easy compromise: "a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as promoting climate change denialism, also referred to as climate skepticism or climate contrarianism." [21] This is well-sourced and covers all the bases: we accurately characterize WUWT, and we address the terminology that has generated so much confusion. (More on terminology in this thread.) Manul ~ talk 07:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Much of this discussion is a red herring. I think the main question we should try to answer should be whether it is appropriate to identify the blog as being sympathetic or supporting global warming denialism. I think the answer to that is clearly, "yes." How this get said is a question of style rather than substance. jps ( talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Manul:, This isn't a FRINGE issue. We are not currently debating the substance of what Watts says about climate science like we do for other people at List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming. Instead, the question is whether we can include fact that some RSs use the label "denialist" when characterizing Watts' views and blog.
The Speaker | What is Said | Applicable question | Relevant to current debate? | |
---|---|---|---|---|
WRONG ISSUE | Watts himself | how climate works | Are those views of climate science WP:FRINGE? | No |
RIGHT ISSUE | Others | how Watts and blog should be characterized | Is reporting some call him "denialist" a WP:BLP violation? | Yes, it's relevant, but no its not a BLP violation |
We are debating the last line in this table. That's a BLP issue, not a fringe one, even if another editor is trying hard to count Google hits and frame the issue as a "FRINGE" matter. The applicable policy is WP:Biographies of living people#Public figures. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
And this source is being overlooked. Organized Climate Change Denial, Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright, The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford university Press, 2011
"…conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine. While a few are hosted by contrarian scientists…, the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)…"
--
Ubikwit
連絡
見学/迷惑 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Those of you that have the time, please help out. Right now, the lede of the article states that it is simply a "climate" and "weather" blog without identifying its agenda at all. I am serially reverted regardless of how I try to let the reader know about its ideological bent. jps ( talk) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Stella Lansing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Couldn't find anything about this lady or her films on wikipedia. Might be fraud, but notable [25] [26] [27] I guess. Logos ( talk) 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
There's another thing to consider when trying to decide about whether a source is worthy of inclusion in regards to fringe claims and that is the the independence of a source. In particular, I'm not convinced that Schwarz is fully independent of Lansing in the sense of being an objective researcher of her stuff. Arguing about whether a source is "primary" or "secondary" is less relevant than considering whether a particular source is reliably independent from the fringe belief itself. jps ( talk) 14:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This draft article seems to be asserting as fact the existence of "a phase of water that does not wholly fit into the categories of solid, liquid, or gas, but rather is best described as a liquid crystal". I'd be interested to know what mainstream science has to say on the subject... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think what you are referencing here is a coherent programatic claim. The idea that "liquid crystal water" exists is not being categorically declared in any of those articles specifically, though there are fringe-claims which may be obliquely referred to. The problem is that I think you may already be synthesizing a lot of these ideas together and I don't see the "independent research" you are claiming. The rejection of polywater and water memory happened because there was sufficient independent scrutiny of the topics that caused outsiders to carefully consider and ultimately debunk the claims. WP:REDFLAG would have us not report further rabbit holes of this sort (and yes, that includes Nature articles which have been notorious in the past for including certain levels of credulity towards outlandish water-based claims such as water memory). What we are likely looking at is a case of cold fusion where ongoing research is hobbling along by a small community of emergent water believers, but the rest of the wider community simply ignores these cases. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is in no position to right the great wrongs of the mainstream ignoring Pollack and the others who make rather outlandish claims about water behavior and so we cannot accept articles on such a subject without sufficient independent documentation. So far, you haven't really shown us any independent documentation. These are all just researchers who are connected in one way or another with these credulous "emergent water" groups. You need to find an independent physicist/chemist who is willing to take their arguments seriously. Even a good debunking would suffice to make the case for fringe notability. Right now, I'm sorry to say, I don't see that we have something that is notable as the idea is only sourced to primary sources without outside notice. jps ( talk) 18:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, first link was a typo, meant to link to this. The second one definitely a review though, it begins with "In this work we review the literature for possible confirmation of a phenomenon..." In regards to linking back to Pollack, you might be right, but how many degrees of freedom are required before a lab is not considered "connected"? Admittedly, I just looked at the author's names, and made sure that they weren't all the same or appearing in each other's work. HailTheWarpCore ( talk) 19:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I see no merit in this article nor any reason for it to be included. The LCW article misuses the term " phase" Phase is determined by temperature and pressure; so where on the phase diagram for water does LCW exist? The examples occur at room temperature and standard pressure, so LCW is not an undiscovered phase of water. It is liquid water, and the phenomena discussed in the examples are properties of liquid water.
The article is misleading in that it presents as magical and unexplained phenomena which are actually not unexplained: see surface tension, for example. Bulk liquid water becomes more ordered when the advantage of being ordered is greater than the cost. The advantage is enthalpy and the cost is entropy. Roches ( talk) 03:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Mae-Wan Ho ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In researching the above draft, I came across this article. Is this WP:FRINGEBLP worthy of inclusion? I don't know that this particular person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
jps ( talk) 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Evidently the many comments made here have had no effect - and we now have an article asserting as fact that this supposed 'state of water' exists. Given the complete lack of evidence that the mainstream scientific community accepts the claim, or that it has even commented on it, I shall be nominating the article for deletion if the issues aren't addressed properly in the next few days. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with draft-space, but this article looks pretty hopeless to me as written (it's a lot of original research, to be frank). I think it probably should be removed from Wikipedia and it certainly has no chance of being made into article-space content in its current state. But I don't know what the rules are about deleting drafts. Anyone know?
jps ( talk) 14:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Jack Ruby ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am wondering if someone can take a look at Jack Ruby#Alleged conspiracies. Lots of primary and fringe sources, and WP:WEIGHT appears to be an issue in that the section is about 50% of the article. (By comparison, Lee Harvey Oswald#Other investigations and dissenting theories directs people to the main article about conspiracy theories.) Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Maurice Cotterell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person's views appear to be on the scientific fringe (e.g. claims that the Mayans predicted apocalypse caused by the sun reversing Earth's magnetic field). [29] Seems like we need to give much more weight to the mainstream view on this subject than what Cotterell thinks. Some secondary sources would also be nice. Everymorning talk 14:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recent changes to the previous version have marginalized the mainstream view expressed by a majority of academic sources that ergot poisoning was the cause of the epidemic. Undue emphasis on a conspiracy theory that the CIA was responsible, sourced to reports repeating the claims of conspiracy theory author Hank Albarelli. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I took a peek at the wiki on the Reconstruction Era after doing some reading on the topic, and was surprised by some of the assertions as well as the prominence given to historical views that are no longer common (like those of the Dunning School) and that might be viewed by some as racist. See my comment on the article's talk page: Talk:Reconstruction_Era#General_Bias?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wswanniii ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC−2)
Menas Kafatos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Looks like it was scrubbed by an online reputation company, this article uncritically promotes the WP:FRINGEBLP without acknowledging the highly fringe-nature of his publications and claims. Can we get some help on it?
jps ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
So what's the best thing to do here? It seems pretty clear to me that the primary notability of this person is an advocacy of avante garde proposals that some might call quantum quackery while, to be honest, such proposals have had certain marginal influences in the philosophy of physics as well as, perhaps, the development of certain breakthrough research programs (Not sure how I feel about How the Hippies Saved Physics, but at the very least this is an idea that has not been dismissed outright). I think that much of what Kafatos is doing is benefitting from an alliance with Deepak Chopra and others who share that outlook, but I also see that he has a grounding in physics that is represented by the post he holds at Chapman University. Even if he didn't hold to some of the more wooly ideas he proposes, his appointment alone might be notable enough. On the other hand, it isn't clear to me he would have gotten this appointment without his connection to popularizing New Age synergy with quantum mechanics. Right now, our biography doesn't even hint at this tensions which makes it problematic, in my estimation. Sources are unfortunately quite thin on this account. Here's one: [30]. jps ( talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
TheCapnPlanet ( talk · contribs)
I see a lot of similarities between these accounts and wonder if the person behind them is being paid as a reputation whitewasher for Chopra's organization.
jps ( talk) 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Ronz and jps Hi, this is the owner of TheCapnPlanet ( talk · contribs) account. I am not sure how to properly comment on things, so I do apologize if I'm doing it incorrectly. While in college, I used to work for Menas Kafatos and was tasked with updating his Wikipedia page a while back. I did my best to do it according to Wikipedia standards and read a lot of the documentation, especially relating to living persons and tried to keep my edits as neutral as I could. As for the other Askahrc ( talk · contribs) account, I have no idea who that is. I did see the mention of Cap'n in his profile page, but that's about the only similarity I saw (FYI The reason I chose my username was because of my favorite cereal growing up as a kid, Capn Crunch, and one of my favorite cartoons, Captain Planet). Thanks for taking the time to ensure the integrity of the content on Wikipedia - my hat is off to you. Let me know if I can be of further assistance in resolving this matter.
As of May 10, 2015, this article doesn't contain anything I really find objectionable. I changed one sentence that asserted that there is a need for dialogue between science and spirituality in Wikipedia's voice. Overall, I think the current article is a good one for a living researcher. The presentation of selected awards and publications is particularly good and concise. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any undue weight on fringe theories. That is, the article provides objective biographical details and doesn't make an effort to change a reader's opinions. Roches ( talk) 15:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete Brewton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Author of The Mafia, CIA and George Bush, which yields lots of hits in the usual conspiracy-minded websites. The article claims that it is a "best seller", but I can find no reliable secondary sources discussing the author or the book. Can anyone else turn up reliable source upon which an article could be built? Academic title is "Visiting Assistant Professor" [31] which would fail WP:PROF. - Location ( talk) 04:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog ( talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Flower of Life ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Original research aplenty. Any cleanup possible?
jps ( talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I love "Possibly five patterns resembling the Flower of Life can be seen on one of the granite columns of the Temple of Osiris in Abydos, Egypt, and a further five on a column opposite of the building." From the article, it is clear that the name originates with Melchizedek, and is not an adaptation of existing name. The claims that the pattern is found elsewhere are a masterful synthesis. "An early example of a repetitive pattern constructed like the pattern of the Flower of Life can be seen in the Assyrian rooms of the Louvre Museum in Paris.[7]" "The extensive corpus of drawings of different geometrical figures by Leonardo da Vinci contains some figures resembling the Flower of Life" There are self-references to his own work. His website is here. Probably safe to delete the lot. Otherwise I will give the name 'circle of Damian' to any ordinary circle, and write a very long article about all the archeological sites where the circle of Damian can be found. You have been warned. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Beginning of the second paragraph in the lead starts with "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the fastest-growing branch of Islam is Ahmadiyya". What my concerns is that User:Peaceworld111 keep adding this fringe theory to this article. Using Christian source on Islamic article about Ahmadiyya. First Ahmadiyya population is only 16 million while Muslim population is about 1.6 billion. Second he doesn't like a clarification added to the same line that Ahmadis are considered non-Muslim by mainstream Islam. Eulalefty ( talk) 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reliable sources for these esoteric giants? The sources seems to be from unreliable occult books and from the way the article is written it reads like it is claiming these giants actually exist. Quack Hunter ( talk) 20:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
See Bob Doyle (inventor). I suspect Doyle himself is responsible for much of that article, and other related ones. None of this makes sense to me:
On the other hand I don't know anything about quantum mechanics. Advice please. Peter Damian ( talk) 16:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This part of the article is opinion and/or original research. I think this article does contain some notable contributions. Doyle invented Merlin, one of the first electronic games, which was the best-selling toy in 1980. Unfortunately, part of the article is opinion and part of it is simply not well screened for importance. I think the article should be kept, but it needs to concentrate on concrete and notable accomplishments. Those interested can go to Doyle's blog or personal site for the subjective content. Roches ( talk) 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thomas J. Devine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Friend and business associate of George H. W. Bush who resigned from the CIA in 1953. The article uses crap sourcing in attempt to link Big Oil to the assassination of JFK. The issues here are somewhat related to a previous discussion about the Harbinger Group, but on a smaller scale. This appears to be a BLP. Is there enough to bring this in line with Wikipedia's notability standards? - Location ( talk) 06:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess Psychoanalysis industry amounts to less billions of dollars than Psychometrics industry: [32]. Despite the related RFC was closed as "exclude", it may benefit from an additional discussion with a broader participation. Logos ( talk) 00:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's baaack. -- Calton | Talk 21:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Acting Witan of Mercia (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I think that is an article which could do with some attention. --
nonsense
ferret 00:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Sovereign Mercia (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
This one is related to
Acting Witan of Mercia and has questionable sourcing (i.e. primary sources and book sources that do not mention the organization).
This reliable source shows what is likely the extent of coverage that should be in Wikipedia. -
Location (
talk) 15:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
James Shelby Downard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Conspiracy author discussed by author conspiracy authors. I could use a fresh set of eyes to remove the unreliable sources and material attributed to the unreliable sources. - Location ( talk) 20:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Another new proponent of the hypothesis (or at least the watered-down dehydrated semi-aquatic version now current) is intent on 'fixing' the article, with unsourced claims that it is gaining scientific credibility, endorsements by Richard Attenborough etc - along with the usual sob-story on the talk page about how 'sceptics' are persecuting proponents like they used to persecute Darwin. As per usual, more eyes on the article would be appreciated.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to fix up some of these ancient astronaut proponent articles but this one seems to be problematic. There are no in depth critical sources that discuss his beliefs, the way the article stands is extremely unbalanced like an advert in favor for some of his strange ideas. Quack Hunter ( talk) 23:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Phantom time hypothesis: I reverted my own edit to here as it was pointed out this wasn't strictly allowed. You can't add a source which doesn't refer to the subject of the article. However this raises a problem I mentioned in an old essay here. "Because science generally ignores pseudoscience, it is often very difficult to find reliable sources that describe some pseudoscientific view as pseudoscientific". The esteemed Newyorkbrad has also commented likewise, saying "It is well-known in the skeptical community that there isn't clear and unambiguous scholarship refuting some of the more insane theories that are advanced, because they are sufficiently absurd on their face that no serious scholar will devote a chunk of his or her career to dealing with them. This is such a case, and the idea that Wikipedia policy requires us to treat the "Phantom time hypothesis" as a serious piece of historiography is a mistake. ".
Can I suggest a third way? Although <analogy> there aren't any source explicitly disproving the Flat Earth hypothesis, can we not gently add information about ways of proving the roundness of it? </analogy> I recently enjoyed reading Evolution of the eye, which is a good reply to creationist arguments that eyes couldn't have evolved. So would it be possible – without aiming to 'refute' PTH – to add a section about the period, mentioning Bede, the Popes who didn't exist, Johannes Scotus Eriugena etc etc. It could all be perfectly sourced, even if the facts about that period weren't established as a means of refuting the hypothesis. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
StraightDope is reliable for a skeptical viewpoint, which would apply here.
I'd think that FRINGE would require us to present historical events that happened during the time. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
62.172.176.50 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User edit-warring to remove mainstream viewpoint from various articles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Categorized under conspiracy theorist, John Coleman (news weathercaster) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article is daily visited by a long term sock, who continues to give undue weight to opinions on global warming by adding about American Meteorological Society, even though they have no bearing on the views of Coleman. ( full discussion)
Problem is with the line "The American Meteorological Society has affirmed the theory of global warming." It is irrelevant and not even used as similarly by the provided source in this context. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Along with that, every issue has been clearly stated on the talk page as well as on the talk page of JzG.(check User_talk:JzG#John_Coleman_.28news_weathercaster.29) I do consider the harm in using sources in wrong context, that's why I mentioned the sentence above. If there are more problems with the article, they should be fixed as well. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite it is true that these edits were originally made by a long term sock [36] [37] and you went there to revert because you were wikihounding. [38] You have also spoken against the page protection, and considered JzG's remark as "attack". [39] There is no consensus for these edits, they have been removed by others all time. [40] [41] [42] [43] It is WP:SYNTHESIS to add any views of AMS on his page, they are not in touch with Coleman nor their views have any connection, [44] when you claim Coleman stating that he left AMS because his opinion contradicted with that of AMS, you don't have to tell that AMS has affirmed the global warming theory, unless it has been similarly stated by the source but there is only a passing mention about Coleman on that article. Check WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. American Meteorological Society is scientific, while Coleman is not, simple. After reading these responses, I am not even amazed that you have used unreliable sources and you don't want to adhere to the concept of WP:FRINGE, NPOV doesn't means that you can state unscientific to be scientific. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@JzG: You really shouldn't be using your admin tools in topic spaces that you're involved in. I think that should go without saying, right? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Christopher Dunn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am not sure how this article has survived so long because there appears to be literally no notable or reliable sources for his ideas, this is probably why not a single reliable source has been added to the article in years. I would appreciate someone putting it up for a deletion. Quack Hunter ( talk) 22:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
See here Jytdog ( talk) 01:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Paramahamsa Tewari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bio that's a coatrack for claims of a "Space Power Generator(SPG), a super high-efficiency machine that produces power from vacuum. A prototype of the machine tested in the labs of Kirloskar Group exhibited 165% efficiency. This essentially defies the Law of Conservation of Energy." - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Dean Ornish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a steaming pile of fetid dingo's kidneys, and the tags at the top, while amply justified by the content, are a WP:BLP nightmare. Unfortunately I don't have enough subject mattr knowledge to fix it. Anyone? Guy ( Help!) 11:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slow edit war to reshape the article to the POV that the CIA dosed a French village with LSD, as alleged by conspiracy theorist Hank Albarelli...despite overwhelming academic consensus that the cause was most likely ergot poisoning- LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like input on whether Robert Bateman and his scholarship on the No Gun Ri Massacre is considered fringe, as alleged by some editors on the page. Part of the debate raging on the page has concerned the reliability of Bateman as a source. A request [49] at WP:RSN yielded nothing besides the (well-established) opinions of two editors involved in the dispute. Thanks for your time.
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 00:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Lee Harvey Oswald ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#RfC: Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage? The material in question pertains to the significance of individuals that Oswald may have encountered during his time in New Orleans and whether that material is appropriate for inclusion in the main article about Oswald. - Location ( talk) 06:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A user is adding claims supportive of the questionable practice of breast thermography (an inaccurate and generally unapproved diagnostic practice) in Thermography_(medical) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Guy ( Help!) 13:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A Request for Comments is in progress on whether to add the category of Pseudo-science to the article on Ayurveda at Talk:Ayurveda. For background information, Ayurveda is an Indian system of traditional medicine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Long-term fringe proponent using the talk-page as a forum for his conspiracy theory/rants about skeptics. Now writing some libelous things about people, also swearing in his comments [50]. Future Kick ( talk) 01:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Twin telepathy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New article. Badly-sourced. Credulous. Doubt it would survive AfD. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Article about a fringe author on the origin of Christopher Columbus, an IT help desk person at Duke University, Durham North Carolina. Frequently edited by IPs from Duke itself, Durham, or nearby Raleigh. I removed the statement "award-winning" and some so-called awards with an summary which says "removing trivial "awards" (one being only recognition, one from his employer Lockheed Martin, the Boston Globe award seems to exist virtually only in articles mentioning Rosa, so again too trivial to be here - to be used they should have their own article". It's all been restored an IP from Durham. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Jeff Rense ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Fringe BLP that seems to lack a lot of outside sources except to hate-site watchdog groups (yikes!). It appears that lately Rense has been letting more and more neo-Nazis on his webpage and radio show.
Shouldn't rense.com be blacklisted? I mean, what is it a reliable source for at all? [55]
jps ( talk) 18:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology.
Comment if you will. One of those interesting fringe theories that isn't pseudoscientific, just obscure.
jps ( talk) 14:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Fringe author, fringe book. I've clean up Moller's article a bit but left the editorial stuff in the book's article to others. I don't want the editor to think it's just me. I doubt that the book should have its own article, haven't checked Moller's notability. The edits to Jabal al-Lawz are very POV. Having said that, User:?Helenacan although not new only has made 1t edits so can't be expected o understand our policies. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw appears to be built upon fringe and primary sources. Is this even an appropriate fork from Trial of Clay Shaw? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 01:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
DGG, TFD: Thanks for the feedback. I have opened up a discussion in Talk:Trial of Clay Shaw#Merge requesting comments on whether or not the list should be merged. - Location ( talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Do we have enough of a group to tackle the walled garden to end-all walled gardens? The transhumanist collective?
I'll start with an article I looked into earlier today:
This led me to
Are all these institutes notable?
jps ( talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
There was the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity which may explain why this forest of poor sourcing exists, but apparently no one has actually done anything about this. I'm not sure I'm ready to dip my toe in. Should we try a trial deletion discussion or should we go full tilt? I'm sure there is a lot more related to these topics. jps ( talk) 00:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to try to get the ball rolling with this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longecity. That article has been tagged for three years now. jps ( talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So, now what do you have to say about this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies jps ( talk) 04:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The Life Extension Foundation may be noteworthy as a supplier of dubious supplements - David Gerard ( talk) 23:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going through Category:Transhumanism and its subcategories adding appropriate articles to {{ WikiProject Alternative Views}}, checking refs and cleaning up dubious ones, and PRODing the worst ones (anything I'd consider obviously AFDable). All assistance would be useful.
A common style of bad article I'm PRODing is a neologism for a common concept that already exists, and the article references support the thing referred to by the neologism but don't mention the neologism itself - David Gerard ( talk) 10:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longevism - David Gerard ( talk) 19:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I put a pile of alternative-views articles in this realm up for PROD. Some have been deproded with better sourcing, which is an excellent outcome. More eyes would be welcomed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Article alerts - David Gerard ( talk) 13:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.
This discussion is mentioned above, but the amount of argument that has erupted on the page is, well, noteworthy. Extra voices and eyes who have no irons in the fire would be greatly appreciated.
jps ( talk) 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Watts Up With That? ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A call to arms has been issued by the owner of the blog to right the wrongs that Wikipedia has been perpetuating against this fringe website.
Monitoring the semi-protected article and its associated talkpage would be appreciated. A lot of new and sleeper meatpuppet accounts have gone to work already.
jps ( talk) 02:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The controversy continues on, but there are some legitimate questions about the fact that Wikipedia has two articles: one on Watts and one on his blog. How to separate or not separate those two might be worth considering. Is Watts notable if not for his blog? I don't think so, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Is the blog notable if not for Watts? Again, I don't think so. Should there be two articles? jps ( talk) 15:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Grover Furr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page seem to be used for promoting fringe historical theories and a marginally notable conspiracy theorist. Most references are to unreliable sources, blogs, dead links, untranslated links on Chineese, etc. Some are links where author "disproves" even .... articles in Wikipedia [56] and disputes well established historical facts, such as execution of Polish officers by the NKVD, etc. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Gulf Breeze UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this hoax worthy of a standalone article? At the very least, can we get some better sourcing?
jps ( talk) 13:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
1976 Tehran UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "Remains one of the most well-documented military encounters with anomalous phenomena in history". Where to begin? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Sheehan (attorney) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This unsourced section: Daniel Sheehan (attorney)#Extraterrestrials and the Disclosure Project is mighty credulous. Do we have sources to write about this peculiar part of his legacy, or should the section simply be removed (along with the sentence in the lede)? Finding independent sourcing about this has been difficult.
jps ( talk) 12:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Miracle of the Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fringe interpretations being pushed [57]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 11:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zacherystaylor/The Fatima UFO Hypothesis - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? - Location ( talk) 01:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
A biography of a fringy physicist. The man hisownself was permanently blocked by Jimbo Wales back in 2005, but he keeps coming back to a) scream about how he's being libelled; and b) puff up his bio. Looks like he's back again. -- Calton | Talk 04:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Pam Reynolds case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Academic sources removed and stuff that "challenges the materialist view" from this outfit are repeatedly inserted . - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Jon Rappoport ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BLP of an "alternative journalist" that only cites primary source material. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 04:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
My eyes hurt. - Roxy the non edible dog™ ( resonate) 09:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this real? [58] [59] Logos ( talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Jessup's admittedly marginal notability is entirely dependent on the Philadelphia Experiment. Jerome Clark is the only UFOlogist to offer some detail of the man's career outside of that WP:ONEVENT, and that's really not enough to justify a standalone bio. Best thing would be to redirect and merge to Philadelphia Experiment, which already contains much of the content. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A relatively new editor is adding [62], a conspiracy website pushing the "Obama administration and their alliance with the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood." junk. [63]. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Rodney Stich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Per an earlier brief discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Stich. - Location ( talk) 10:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Food_Babe - yes, I did say that (and I did not hear it from anyone else first and don't know of any mentions before that), but I don't count myself much of an authority. Guy ( Help!) 17:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this book, replete with fringe theories and written by the white supremacist, Michael H. Hart, notable enough for an article? I can really only find reviews in the white supremacist circles.
For that matter, is Michael H. Hart himself notable enough for a biography?
jps ( talk) 17:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Related, anyway: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia. We should continue to discuss the other articles more relevant to WP:FRINGE for possible adjustment. jps ( talk) 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
To get this back on track, whether the book is fringe, or Hart is a white supremacist, or his ranking method is stupid and arbitrary has nothing to do with whether there should be an article on the book. The only relevant question is whether there is evidence of notability. After all Mein Kampf is a blue link. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
An IP has determined that since Rupert Sheldrake and Brian Josephson treat parapsychology as science, the article should be framed as if only skeptics view it as a pseudoscience. Additional views are welcome. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The Sheldrake Summer Squad has come again to attempt to argue that presenting in detail and unchallenged the claims from Sheldrakes books is appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there's a complaint at the biographies of living persons noticeboard from a notable person who doesn't like being called "fringe" even at an article talk page.
I think Wikipedia's nomenclature in this area is horrendous. We call a Sasquatch/UFO theory "fringe" which is fine, but then we insist on calling virtually every other non-mainstream theory "fringe" as well. This is a recipe for confusion and indignation. To top it all off, WP:Fringe offers a set of examples that are only of the Sasquatch/UFO type, thus undercutting the allegedly broad Wikipedia definition of "fringe". The whole thing is highly f*cked up, IMHO. Anythingyouwant ( talk),
I don't think that this is a particularly controversial definition of what is fringe. Your hypothetical rather proves the point, in my estimation. As for the discussion at BLPN, I am going to need some crib notes here to understand what you think the problem is. Apparently you think there is some idea that is being falsely labeled as "fringe", but I what I need you to do is identify what that particular idea is and why it is being so falsely labeled. Then we can see if its the guideline that's causing the problem or something else. jps ( talk) 21:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It's also a completely inaccurate interpretation of WP:FRINGE. The guideline spends quite some time detailing "alternative theoretical formulations" and explaining how they are not pseudoscience, and, while they should be compared to the mainstream, shouldn't be dismissed as pseudoscience. The key word in "an idea that departs significantly" is "significantly". It's the difference between, say, species selection (controversial, but not fringe) and creationism (pseudosience) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, more and more contemporary politics is intersecting with pseudoscience and other fringe theories. Global warming, GMOs, creationism, historical revisionism, nationalist mythologies, and alternative medicine are just a few of the areas that intersect with politics. Of course, the political questions associated with these controversies are only incidental to the WP:FRINGE aspects of these ideas. If a country decides to start a government astrologer post, that's not a WP:FRINGE issue, per se. The facts related to whether the astrologer is able to predict the future or not are, however. jps ( talk) 15:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This edit says, "Classifying Alternative Medicine as pseudoscience... Wikipedia is on a misinformation campaign against alternative health and the healing arts... Natural health deserves fair representation.... We’re going to set the record straight. We need your help and invite you to get involved in the process. Please check the various reward levels to discover how to participate."
An editor on the alt med talk page suggested more is needed on these kind of marketing schemes by alt med promoters, to create the illusion of scientific justification, biological plausibility, or that there may be energies undiscovered by physics that alt med studies can reveal by "systematic reviews" that admit to using imperfect studies, yet get published as showing efficacy anyway. Does anyone have RS sources for these marketing strategies? FloraWilde ( talk) 15:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (2nd nomination)
Comment, please.
jps ( talk) 23:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Following up on the consensus gap in the BLPN discussion above, I've started a place for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Does_WP:FRINGE_establish_any_unique_guidelines.3F about how WP:FRINGE fits in the overall ecosystem of WP policies. Rhoark ( talk) 21:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I have posted a question on WP:RSN regarding the use of RT.com in RT in CIA–al-Qaeda controversy. - Location ( talk) 20:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
A very odd article on a complete separate vascular system missed by all the "conventional" anatomical texts, discovered in 1962 and "confirmed" half a century later by a group of people who - purely coincidentally - seem to eb vested in promoting the doctrine of meridians in acupuncture. Guy ( Help!) 14:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Ufology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has anyone looked at the sprawling mass that is ufology lately? It is atrocious — full of original research and references to deleted articles along with what seems like reams of coatracked content.
I'm not even sure where to begin with a rewrite. Is there any social science text written on this subject which describes the particular pathological thinking that leads people to think of UFOs as worthy of serious consideration? I have occasionally crossed paths with people who argued as much, but when I press them they tend to run away from my specific inquiries.
Help!
jps ( talk) 03:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
List of people associated with vaccination ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people associated with vaccination
The article apparently originated here back in 2011, so dropping a notice here for anyone involved. Kolbasz ( talk) 13:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This is one of these edits that involved WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, etc and I never know where to mention them as I don't like going to 2 boards for one edit. But as it mainly involves Answers in Genesis, I'm coming here/ I've been trying to explain to 66.190.249.59 ( talk · contribs) about our policies but they still don't get it.
"In March 2015, Americans United filed a motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed in the state of Kentucky. Americans United is representing, four Kentucky taxpayers, two of whom are Baptist ministers.<ref>http://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/29956-baptist-ministers-oppose-tax-break-for-ark-park</ref> In the lawsuit,<ref>https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/ark/lawsuit-document.pdf</ref> Ark Encounter LLC,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis#Ark_Encounter</ref> the developer of a tourist attraction featuring a life size model of Noah's Ark, is requesting the state of Kentucky approve its application for a tourism incentive program that would offset some of its development costs by deferring sales taxes the theme park itself will generate through its ticket sales. Kentucky governor Steve Beshear also filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Last year a board within the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet that reviews such applications gave preliminary approval of an application seeking $18 million in tax rebates for the $73 million development. But in December Bob Stewart, secretary of the state Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet, rejected the application on final review saying the applicant changed its position on hiring practices and now intended to discriminate in hiring based on religion.<ref>http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/beshear-asks-dismissal-ark-case/70571974/</ref> In their motion Beshear and Stewart said, "Providing the public funding sought for religious purposes ...would constitute an unlawful establishment of religion under the U.S. and Kentucky constitutions." According to its complaint, Ark Encounter LLC, suggests the subject position advertised was not for an employee of Ark Encounter LLC but for a position at Answers in Genesis that is lawfully able to select employees based upon religious beliefs since it is a religious ministry."
The WP:UNDUE bit is because I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this lawsuit which does mention the subject of the article in the media besides the Baptist website. As for sources, we have the Baptist site (mentioning AU & the lawsuit), the Courier-Journal (mentioning the lawsuit but not AU), our Answers in Genesis article which should probably be a wikilink to the Ark Encounter, and a pdf on Answers in Genesis website (and note that even a court document would almost certainly fail WP:RS as a primary source. I don't want the IP to think I'm making this all up or being unfair (they already think I'm following them around, which of course is in a sense true, I found a problem at another article the IP edited and after fixing that looked at other edits). I'll notify the IP now.
And if anyone thinks this should be at another NB, let me know and I'll move it. Dougweller ( talk) 09:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Wickstrom - the sources are entirely promotional and do not point out the rather well-known fact that Narconon is a scam. The article needs to go, or be drastically revised to reflect the reality-based view of the Scientology cult's abusive drug rehab fraud. Guy ( Help!) 15:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
John Lear ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncited biography of a living person who is a UFOlogist and grandson of the inventor of the Lear jet. Does coverage in reliable secondary sources exist or is this one for Afd? - Location ( talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Scientific_papers_listing
Please note that Nigelj has added Sheldrake's reported list of scientific papers to the article as a citation to our first identifier of Rupert Sheldrake as a "scientist". I'm concerned that this list includes many papers which are not strictly scientific. It would be great to get some outside opinions on the matter.
jps ( talk) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, sure, but we obviously can't say that in the first sentence of the article. The question is, "What do we say?" There are competing positions here. One position is credentialism. It is undeniable that Sheldrake has been trained at first-rate institutions and has participated in process science that has been if perhaps not notable then at least what everyone agrees is a normal part of a scientific career. That was decades ago. Now, Sheldrake publishes ideas strictly outside of that framework. That doesn't mean he loses his membership card in the "I am a scientist!" club, but it certainly means that we should think about how this presentation is done. I tried putting in "biologist by training" as a way of explaining this situation, but that was rejected as being somehow demeaning to Sheldrake's background. So we're stuck with this kind of special pleading, but I'm not sure what way out of it there is. We need to be able to get across to the reader that here is a guy who has been trained and has worked professionally as a scientist but who currently works in way that most scientists would describe as "pseudoscientific". That's the game. How Wikipedia does this is not something I've figured out and it certainly isn't being helped by a talkpage that seems to have a number of people who aren't able to see that this actually is the game. jps ( talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks. I request input. QuackGuru ( talk) 08:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Needs more eyes. I've just reverted some edits by an editor who doesn't understand that NPOV doesn't mean we take a neutral stance. Dougweller ( talk) 08:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Quantum mind ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ongoing edit war to insert "Classical physics is a false theory of the world" [1] into the lead. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Once again, an IP pushing Manuel Rosa, informing our readers that Rosa has made a convincing case. I've reverted once but it's back. Dougweller ( talk) 09:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I am seeking a second opinion in Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#On removal of information contained in FBI report. One editor wishes to include material (i.e. that LBJ believed the CIA was involved in assassinating JFK) in the main conspiracy article, but that same material is already in the appropriate sub-article (i.e. CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory). On top of that, the material he wishes to include is not accurately summarized nor is it properly attributed. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 03:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are researching complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and you are not hated by the CAM world, you're not doing it right.
This constitutes evidence that we are, in fact, doing it right. Well done. Guy ( Help!) 07:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A couple editors are telling me my sources are fringe. Walasma dynasty were Argobba. I found several sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (page 14 footnotes). Are these fringe? Zekenyan ( talk)
Shag Harbour UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We should decide whether this particular incident was notable enough. It was investigated by a number of different groups back in the 60s when such investigations were a little more common than they are today. Nothing came of it, though, and it isn't particularly prominent a sighting as far as I can tell.
jps ( talk) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
File:UFO and Meteor Shower over High Desert.jpg has been renamed File:Evening sky over High Desert California.jpg. jps ( talk) 10:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm stepping back from an edit war over this one. Am I right in saying that it needs to have a reliable source calling it a UFO, before putting it in articles and calling it a UFO? Geogene ( talk) 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Pocketthis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ...is the uploader, and has been trying to insert it into a number of articles. We need a RS for Wikipedia to call it "unknown" or "a UFO" or "unidentified". The claim of an uploader isn't sufficient. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
stepping back from this a bit, it seems to me that
Pocketthis is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote his/her photo. Based on
the comment above, he/she has been sending it all over the place. Promotion is not what Wikipedia is for, per
WP:PROMO. If there are reliable sources out there that discuss this photo, I could see the photo getting posted in the UFO article with some content about it, but otherwise it should not be used anywhere else. If there are no RS, then this photo doesn't belong anywhere in WP. And circling back, if there are RS, in my view Pocketthis has a conflict of interest in the matter (see especially
WP:SELFCITE and should not post it directly but should use the
template:edit request function.
Jytdog (
talk) 16:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) (striking, wrong tone
Jytdog (
talk) 22:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC))
Thanks for the explanation Louie. All is well. I agree that we need experts to say exactly what that airborne object is. But don't you see? That is what makes it a UFO. Saying it is a UFO, is just saying we don't know what it is. It implies no extraterrestrial implications. It's just plain "unidentified". I am going to give you the same advice I gave Georgene: Go to the UFO article and read what a UFO is. It will at least end THAT part of this discussion. Almost all UFOs in the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book, have been identified as being due to honest misidentifications of natural phenomena. Read this article here as well: /info/en/?search=Identification_studies_of_UFOs that should clear up any misunderstandings about alien implications. -Thanks- Pocketthis ( talk) 21:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
"Saying it is a UFO, is just saying we don't know what it is."As jps cogently puts it above, that's "an attempt to revert to a previous denotation". I'm sorry, Pocketthis. The reason I'm posting here is that when I clicked idly on your userpage and saw all the great photos you have donated to the encyclopedia, I was really sorry the argument about this one photo has upset you. I don't like to see the unkind suggestions about spamming and self-promotion in this thread either, because I don't think there's anything in them. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ugh. I was not aware that this was a thing until today. Anyway, I think the article could benefit from some people who have experience in mitigating WP:FRINGE issues on Wikipedia having a once-over. The lede, for example, contains some wording that seems peculiarly hedgy to me as if there might be something to the conspiracy theories after all. And then there is the issue of relegating all the factual debunking to an anemic "response" section at the end of the article. I don't think there has been much academic research on these particular folks yet, though the skeptic watchdog groups may have some more points to add (and should be considered as WP:PARITY sources).
Anyway, can we get some help for this?
jps ( talk) 14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Related to this page:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictive programming.
Please comment.
jps ( talk) 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
David Talbott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I tried to get this article deleted a few times unsuccessfully. This is a guy who read Immanuel Velikovsky's work and then decided to do his own amateur speculations on comparative mythology and so-called "catastrophism". The guy wrote a book thirty years ago that argued that 1) Saturn was a brown dwarf a few thousand years ago, 2) it was much closer to the Earth than the Sun at that time, 3) Venus and Mars also orbited Saturn and were basically visible as disks, 4) the Earth orbited Saturn orthogonal to its rotation axis so that the North Pole faced Saturn.
Okay, so we can agree that this is totally bonkers, but the problem is that it is so bonkers that basically no one has bothered to critique the idea. The inappropriately attributed critiques included in the article make it seem that these are one-off problems with this guy's ideas, but since this person is not a famous crank, we don't have a lot of independent sources that mention him. The few we do have are so minor (and, I'll note, only published in fringe journals dedicated to Velikovsky) as to make the article very unbalanced. It doesn't help that this is a WP:FRINGEBLP and so we're stuck trying to evaluate nonsense ideas in a article that is supposed to ostensibly be about the person.
Anyway, I'd like to get some help with this. What should be done?
jps ( talk) 12:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dtalbott/bio notes.
Comments welcome.
jps ( talk) 11:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis.
Comment here too, if you would.
jps ( talk) 11:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
At the very least this BLP needs to be stripped of a lot of questionable info from primary sources controlled by the subject. (How many Yale Law graduates go on to get a "Master of Education in Counseling" from UT?) It's been through AFD once but got a "no consensus". I'm thinking that it might need another, final trip. Mangoe ( talk) 03:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Rodney Stich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rodney Stich is a conspiracy author. The article appears to be built upon fringe and primary sources. I'm not sure that notability can be determined by Conspiracy Encyclopedia. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 13:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Building biology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Opinions about Building biology? It appears to be a set of practices and principles with varying degrees of scientific support, and with an organization behind them. The organization, the practice, and the principles clearly exist, and are probably notable. Should building biology be described as a science? A pseudoscience? An organization? A methodology? An approach to indoor environmental health? A basically mainstream topic wide enough to include a range of opinions? -- Amble ( talk) 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
William Reymond ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
William Reymond is a French conspiracy author, and the BLP's only source is a primary source. Can anyone confirm whether sources, French or otherwise, support notability under WP:AUTHOR? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 21:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Fringe writer, see [17], who has attracted some publicity. He calls himself an archaeologist but clearly isn't one. I did a heavy revert of several edits removing fringe material sourced to him and others at Copper Scroll after finding him boosted at Mount Sinai. He's mentioned in Jordan Lead Codices but at least I can see some reason for that. Holy Lance has had a paragraph about him for years. Dougweller ( talk) 11:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Darryl Anka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guy (related to Paul Anka) claiming to receive messages from a multi dimensional extraterrestrial. Aside from a single story in the Toronto Sun, Anka appears to be unknown outside of the fringe world. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Van Monster Logos ( talk) 21:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
A theological article although with what I think is a fringe aspect, see Talk:Splitting of the moon#Separate Article for the NASA dispute. As you can see, there's a suggestion that the NASA dispute be moved out of the article. Dougweller ( talk) 14:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
HOUSEKEEPING NOTE - This is part of a debate at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) which spilled over to other threads including
Anthony Watts (blogger) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
High-quality scholarly sources that non-trivially discuss this person's blog have characterized it as climate change denialism, obviously a fringe view. [Edit: See the seven sources in the opening sentence of this revision.] However since it is also called a "skeptic" blog by some popular magazines and newspapers -- as well as by some scholarly articles as a synonym for denialism ( explained here) -- we have the problem of a fringe view being portrayed as non-fringe via the context-free use of the word "skeptic". The allusion to scientific skepticism is unfortunate, and indeed there is a source that specifically contrasts the blog with scientific skepticism.
It has hitherto been difficult convincing some editors that a fringe-related article should make use of the high-quality scholarly sources available. Instead, editors have been counting the number of newspapers and other sources that use the term "skeptic". Manul ~ talk 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
...a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as supporting climate change denialism, and that is also called "skeptical". What would this convey to the reader? There would be the implied suggestion that these are opposing viewpoints, when our sources say that they are the same. We might be suggesting scientific skepticism, which is contrary to at least one source.
I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:
Google Scholar Totals:
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is an easy compromise: "a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as promoting climate change denialism, also referred to as climate skepticism or climate contrarianism." [21] This is well-sourced and covers all the bases: we accurately characterize WUWT, and we address the terminology that has generated so much confusion. (More on terminology in this thread.) Manul ~ talk 07:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Much of this discussion is a red herring. I think the main question we should try to answer should be whether it is appropriate to identify the blog as being sympathetic or supporting global warming denialism. I think the answer to that is clearly, "yes." How this get said is a question of style rather than substance. jps ( talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Manul:, This isn't a FRINGE issue. We are not currently debating the substance of what Watts says about climate science like we do for other people at List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming. Instead, the question is whether we can include fact that some RSs use the label "denialist" when characterizing Watts' views and blog.
The Speaker | What is Said | Applicable question | Relevant to current debate? | |
---|---|---|---|---|
WRONG ISSUE | Watts himself | how climate works | Are those views of climate science WP:FRINGE? | No |
RIGHT ISSUE | Others | how Watts and blog should be characterized | Is reporting some call him "denialist" a WP:BLP violation? | Yes, it's relevant, but no its not a BLP violation |
We are debating the last line in this table. That's a BLP issue, not a fringe one, even if another editor is trying hard to count Google hits and frame the issue as a "FRINGE" matter. The applicable policy is WP:Biographies of living people#Public figures. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
And this source is being overlooked. Organized Climate Change Denial, Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright, The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford university Press, 2011
"…conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine. While a few are hosted by contrarian scientists…, the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)…"
--
Ubikwit
連絡
見学/迷惑 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Those of you that have the time, please help out. Right now, the lede of the article states that it is simply a "climate" and "weather" blog without identifying its agenda at all. I am serially reverted regardless of how I try to let the reader know about its ideological bent. jps ( talk) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Stella Lansing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Couldn't find anything about this lady or her films on wikipedia. Might be fraud, but notable [25] [26] [27] I guess. Logos ( talk) 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
There's another thing to consider when trying to decide about whether a source is worthy of inclusion in regards to fringe claims and that is the the independence of a source. In particular, I'm not convinced that Schwarz is fully independent of Lansing in the sense of being an objective researcher of her stuff. Arguing about whether a source is "primary" or "secondary" is less relevant than considering whether a particular source is reliably independent from the fringe belief itself. jps ( talk) 14:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This draft article seems to be asserting as fact the existence of "a phase of water that does not wholly fit into the categories of solid, liquid, or gas, but rather is best described as a liquid crystal". I'd be interested to know what mainstream science has to say on the subject... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think what you are referencing here is a coherent programatic claim. The idea that "liquid crystal water" exists is not being categorically declared in any of those articles specifically, though there are fringe-claims which may be obliquely referred to. The problem is that I think you may already be synthesizing a lot of these ideas together and I don't see the "independent research" you are claiming. The rejection of polywater and water memory happened because there was sufficient independent scrutiny of the topics that caused outsiders to carefully consider and ultimately debunk the claims. WP:REDFLAG would have us not report further rabbit holes of this sort (and yes, that includes Nature articles which have been notorious in the past for including certain levels of credulity towards outlandish water-based claims such as water memory). What we are likely looking at is a case of cold fusion where ongoing research is hobbling along by a small community of emergent water believers, but the rest of the wider community simply ignores these cases. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is in no position to right the great wrongs of the mainstream ignoring Pollack and the others who make rather outlandish claims about water behavior and so we cannot accept articles on such a subject without sufficient independent documentation. So far, you haven't really shown us any independent documentation. These are all just researchers who are connected in one way or another with these credulous "emergent water" groups. You need to find an independent physicist/chemist who is willing to take their arguments seriously. Even a good debunking would suffice to make the case for fringe notability. Right now, I'm sorry to say, I don't see that we have something that is notable as the idea is only sourced to primary sources without outside notice. jps ( talk) 18:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, first link was a typo, meant to link to this. The second one definitely a review though, it begins with "In this work we review the literature for possible confirmation of a phenomenon..." In regards to linking back to Pollack, you might be right, but how many degrees of freedom are required before a lab is not considered "connected"? Admittedly, I just looked at the author's names, and made sure that they weren't all the same or appearing in each other's work. HailTheWarpCore ( talk) 19:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I see no merit in this article nor any reason for it to be included. The LCW article misuses the term " phase" Phase is determined by temperature and pressure; so where on the phase diagram for water does LCW exist? The examples occur at room temperature and standard pressure, so LCW is not an undiscovered phase of water. It is liquid water, and the phenomena discussed in the examples are properties of liquid water.
The article is misleading in that it presents as magical and unexplained phenomena which are actually not unexplained: see surface tension, for example. Bulk liquid water becomes more ordered when the advantage of being ordered is greater than the cost. The advantage is enthalpy and the cost is entropy. Roches ( talk) 03:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Mae-Wan Ho ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In researching the above draft, I came across this article. Is this WP:FRINGEBLP worthy of inclusion? I don't know that this particular person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
jps ( talk) 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Evidently the many comments made here have had no effect - and we now have an article asserting as fact that this supposed 'state of water' exists. Given the complete lack of evidence that the mainstream scientific community accepts the claim, or that it has even commented on it, I shall be nominating the article for deletion if the issues aren't addressed properly in the next few days. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with draft-space, but this article looks pretty hopeless to me as written (it's a lot of original research, to be frank). I think it probably should be removed from Wikipedia and it certainly has no chance of being made into article-space content in its current state. But I don't know what the rules are about deleting drafts. Anyone know?
jps ( talk) 14:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Jack Ruby ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am wondering if someone can take a look at Jack Ruby#Alleged conspiracies. Lots of primary and fringe sources, and WP:WEIGHT appears to be an issue in that the section is about 50% of the article. (By comparison, Lee Harvey Oswald#Other investigations and dissenting theories directs people to the main article about conspiracy theories.) Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Maurice Cotterell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person's views appear to be on the scientific fringe (e.g. claims that the Mayans predicted apocalypse caused by the sun reversing Earth's magnetic field). [29] Seems like we need to give much more weight to the mainstream view on this subject than what Cotterell thinks. Some secondary sources would also be nice. Everymorning talk 14:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recent changes to the previous version have marginalized the mainstream view expressed by a majority of academic sources that ergot poisoning was the cause of the epidemic. Undue emphasis on a conspiracy theory that the CIA was responsible, sourced to reports repeating the claims of conspiracy theory author Hank Albarelli. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I took a peek at the wiki on the Reconstruction Era after doing some reading on the topic, and was surprised by some of the assertions as well as the prominence given to historical views that are no longer common (like those of the Dunning School) and that might be viewed by some as racist. See my comment on the article's talk page: Talk:Reconstruction_Era#General_Bias?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wswanniii ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC−2)
Menas Kafatos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Looks like it was scrubbed by an online reputation company, this article uncritically promotes the WP:FRINGEBLP without acknowledging the highly fringe-nature of his publications and claims. Can we get some help on it?
jps ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
So what's the best thing to do here? It seems pretty clear to me that the primary notability of this person is an advocacy of avante garde proposals that some might call quantum quackery while, to be honest, such proposals have had certain marginal influences in the philosophy of physics as well as, perhaps, the development of certain breakthrough research programs (Not sure how I feel about How the Hippies Saved Physics, but at the very least this is an idea that has not been dismissed outright). I think that much of what Kafatos is doing is benefitting from an alliance with Deepak Chopra and others who share that outlook, but I also see that he has a grounding in physics that is represented by the post he holds at Chapman University. Even if he didn't hold to some of the more wooly ideas he proposes, his appointment alone might be notable enough. On the other hand, it isn't clear to me he would have gotten this appointment without his connection to popularizing New Age synergy with quantum mechanics. Right now, our biography doesn't even hint at this tensions which makes it problematic, in my estimation. Sources are unfortunately quite thin on this account. Here's one: [30]. jps ( talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
TheCapnPlanet ( talk · contribs)
I see a lot of similarities between these accounts and wonder if the person behind them is being paid as a reputation whitewasher for Chopra's organization.
jps ( talk) 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Ronz and jps Hi, this is the owner of TheCapnPlanet ( talk · contribs) account. I am not sure how to properly comment on things, so I do apologize if I'm doing it incorrectly. While in college, I used to work for Menas Kafatos and was tasked with updating his Wikipedia page a while back. I did my best to do it according to Wikipedia standards and read a lot of the documentation, especially relating to living persons and tried to keep my edits as neutral as I could. As for the other Askahrc ( talk · contribs) account, I have no idea who that is. I did see the mention of Cap'n in his profile page, but that's about the only similarity I saw (FYI The reason I chose my username was because of my favorite cereal growing up as a kid, Capn Crunch, and one of my favorite cartoons, Captain Planet). Thanks for taking the time to ensure the integrity of the content on Wikipedia - my hat is off to you. Let me know if I can be of further assistance in resolving this matter.
As of May 10, 2015, this article doesn't contain anything I really find objectionable. I changed one sentence that asserted that there is a need for dialogue between science and spirituality in Wikipedia's voice. Overall, I think the current article is a good one for a living researcher. The presentation of selected awards and publications is particularly good and concise. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any undue weight on fringe theories. That is, the article provides objective biographical details and doesn't make an effort to change a reader's opinions. Roches ( talk) 15:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete Brewton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Author of The Mafia, CIA and George Bush, which yields lots of hits in the usual conspiracy-minded websites. The article claims that it is a "best seller", but I can find no reliable secondary sources discussing the author or the book. Can anyone else turn up reliable source upon which an article could be built? Academic title is "Visiting Assistant Professor" [31] which would fail WP:PROF. - Location ( talk) 04:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog ( talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Flower of Life ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Original research aplenty. Any cleanup possible?
jps ( talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I love "Possibly five patterns resembling the Flower of Life can be seen on one of the granite columns of the Temple of Osiris in Abydos, Egypt, and a further five on a column opposite of the building." From the article, it is clear that the name originates with Melchizedek, and is not an adaptation of existing name. The claims that the pattern is found elsewhere are a masterful synthesis. "An early example of a repetitive pattern constructed like the pattern of the Flower of Life can be seen in the Assyrian rooms of the Louvre Museum in Paris.[7]" "The extensive corpus of drawings of different geometrical figures by Leonardo da Vinci contains some figures resembling the Flower of Life" There are self-references to his own work. His website is here. Probably safe to delete the lot. Otherwise I will give the name 'circle of Damian' to any ordinary circle, and write a very long article about all the archeological sites where the circle of Damian can be found. You have been warned. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Beginning of the second paragraph in the lead starts with "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the fastest-growing branch of Islam is Ahmadiyya". What my concerns is that User:Peaceworld111 keep adding this fringe theory to this article. Using Christian source on Islamic article about Ahmadiyya. First Ahmadiyya population is only 16 million while Muslim population is about 1.6 billion. Second he doesn't like a clarification added to the same line that Ahmadis are considered non-Muslim by mainstream Islam. Eulalefty ( talk) 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reliable sources for these esoteric giants? The sources seems to be from unreliable occult books and from the way the article is written it reads like it is claiming these giants actually exist. Quack Hunter ( talk) 20:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
See Bob Doyle (inventor). I suspect Doyle himself is responsible for much of that article, and other related ones. None of this makes sense to me:
On the other hand I don't know anything about quantum mechanics. Advice please. Peter Damian ( talk) 16:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This part of the article is opinion and/or original research. I think this article does contain some notable contributions. Doyle invented Merlin, one of the first electronic games, which was the best-selling toy in 1980. Unfortunately, part of the article is opinion and part of it is simply not well screened for importance. I think the article should be kept, but it needs to concentrate on concrete and notable accomplishments. Those interested can go to Doyle's blog or personal site for the subjective content. Roches ( talk) 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thomas J. Devine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Friend and business associate of George H. W. Bush who resigned from the CIA in 1953. The article uses crap sourcing in attempt to link Big Oil to the assassination of JFK. The issues here are somewhat related to a previous discussion about the Harbinger Group, but on a smaller scale. This appears to be a BLP. Is there enough to bring this in line with Wikipedia's notability standards? - Location ( talk) 06:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess Psychoanalysis industry amounts to less billions of dollars than Psychometrics industry: [32]. Despite the related RFC was closed as "exclude", it may benefit from an additional discussion with a broader participation. Logos ( talk) 00:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's baaack. -- Calton | Talk 21:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Acting Witan of Mercia (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I think that is an article which could do with some attention. --
nonsense
ferret 00:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Sovereign Mercia (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
This one is related to
Acting Witan of Mercia and has questionable sourcing (i.e. primary sources and book sources that do not mention the organization).
This reliable source shows what is likely the extent of coverage that should be in Wikipedia. -
Location (
talk) 15:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
James Shelby Downard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Conspiracy author discussed by author conspiracy authors. I could use a fresh set of eyes to remove the unreliable sources and material attributed to the unreliable sources. - Location ( talk) 20:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Another new proponent of the hypothesis (or at least the watered-down dehydrated semi-aquatic version now current) is intent on 'fixing' the article, with unsourced claims that it is gaining scientific credibility, endorsements by Richard Attenborough etc - along with the usual sob-story on the talk page about how 'sceptics' are persecuting proponents like they used to persecute Darwin. As per usual, more eyes on the article would be appreciated.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to fix up some of these ancient astronaut proponent articles but this one seems to be problematic. There are no in depth critical sources that discuss his beliefs, the way the article stands is extremely unbalanced like an advert in favor for some of his strange ideas. Quack Hunter ( talk) 23:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Phantom time hypothesis: I reverted my own edit to here as it was pointed out this wasn't strictly allowed. You can't add a source which doesn't refer to the subject of the article. However this raises a problem I mentioned in an old essay here. "Because science generally ignores pseudoscience, it is often very difficult to find reliable sources that describe some pseudoscientific view as pseudoscientific". The esteemed Newyorkbrad has also commented likewise, saying "It is well-known in the skeptical community that there isn't clear and unambiguous scholarship refuting some of the more insane theories that are advanced, because they are sufficiently absurd on their face that no serious scholar will devote a chunk of his or her career to dealing with them. This is such a case, and the idea that Wikipedia policy requires us to treat the "Phantom time hypothesis" as a serious piece of historiography is a mistake. ".
Can I suggest a third way? Although <analogy> there aren't any source explicitly disproving the Flat Earth hypothesis, can we not gently add information about ways of proving the roundness of it? </analogy> I recently enjoyed reading Evolution of the eye, which is a good reply to creationist arguments that eyes couldn't have evolved. So would it be possible – without aiming to 'refute' PTH – to add a section about the period, mentioning Bede, the Popes who didn't exist, Johannes Scotus Eriugena etc etc. It could all be perfectly sourced, even if the facts about that period weren't established as a means of refuting the hypothesis. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
StraightDope is reliable for a skeptical viewpoint, which would apply here.
I'd think that FRINGE would require us to present historical events that happened during the time. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
62.172.176.50 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User edit-warring to remove mainstream viewpoint from various articles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Categorized under conspiracy theorist, John Coleman (news weathercaster) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article is daily visited by a long term sock, who continues to give undue weight to opinions on global warming by adding about American Meteorological Society, even though they have no bearing on the views of Coleman. ( full discussion)
Problem is with the line "The American Meteorological Society has affirmed the theory of global warming." It is irrelevant and not even used as similarly by the provided source in this context. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Along with that, every issue has been clearly stated on the talk page as well as on the talk page of JzG.(check User_talk:JzG#John_Coleman_.28news_weathercaster.29) I do consider the harm in using sources in wrong context, that's why I mentioned the sentence above. If there are more problems with the article, they should be fixed as well. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite it is true that these edits were originally made by a long term sock [36] [37] and you went there to revert because you were wikihounding. [38] You have also spoken against the page protection, and considered JzG's remark as "attack". [39] There is no consensus for these edits, they have been removed by others all time. [40] [41] [42] [43] It is WP:SYNTHESIS to add any views of AMS on his page, they are not in touch with Coleman nor their views have any connection, [44] when you claim Coleman stating that he left AMS because his opinion contradicted with that of AMS, you don't have to tell that AMS has affirmed the global warming theory, unless it has been similarly stated by the source but there is only a passing mention about Coleman on that article. Check WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. American Meteorological Society is scientific, while Coleman is not, simple. After reading these responses, I am not even amazed that you have used unreliable sources and you don't want to adhere to the concept of WP:FRINGE, NPOV doesn't means that you can state unscientific to be scientific. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@JzG: You really shouldn't be using your admin tools in topic spaces that you're involved in. I think that should go without saying, right? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Christopher Dunn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am not sure how this article has survived so long because there appears to be literally no notable or reliable sources for his ideas, this is probably why not a single reliable source has been added to the article in years. I would appreciate someone putting it up for a deletion. Quack Hunter ( talk) 22:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
See here Jytdog ( talk) 01:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Paramahamsa Tewari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bio that's a coatrack for claims of a "Space Power Generator(SPG), a super high-efficiency machine that produces power from vacuum. A prototype of the machine tested in the labs of Kirloskar Group exhibited 165% efficiency. This essentially defies the Law of Conservation of Energy." - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Dean Ornish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a steaming pile of fetid dingo's kidneys, and the tags at the top, while amply justified by the content, are a WP:BLP nightmare. Unfortunately I don't have enough subject mattr knowledge to fix it. Anyone? Guy ( Help!) 11:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slow edit war to reshape the article to the POV that the CIA dosed a French village with LSD, as alleged by conspiracy theorist Hank Albarelli...despite overwhelming academic consensus that the cause was most likely ergot poisoning- LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like input on whether Robert Bateman and his scholarship on the No Gun Ri Massacre is considered fringe, as alleged by some editors on the page. Part of the debate raging on the page has concerned the reliability of Bateman as a source. A request [49] at WP:RSN yielded nothing besides the (well-established) opinions of two editors involved in the dispute. Thanks for your time.
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 00:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Lee Harvey Oswald ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#RfC: Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage? The material in question pertains to the significance of individuals that Oswald may have encountered during his time in New Orleans and whether that material is appropriate for inclusion in the main article about Oswald. - Location ( talk) 06:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A user is adding claims supportive of the questionable practice of breast thermography (an inaccurate and generally unapproved diagnostic practice) in Thermography_(medical) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Guy ( Help!) 13:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A Request for Comments is in progress on whether to add the category of Pseudo-science to the article on Ayurveda at Talk:Ayurveda. For background information, Ayurveda is an Indian system of traditional medicine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Long-term fringe proponent using the talk-page as a forum for his conspiracy theory/rants about skeptics. Now writing some libelous things about people, also swearing in his comments [50]. Future Kick ( talk) 01:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Twin telepathy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New article. Badly-sourced. Credulous. Doubt it would survive AfD. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Article about a fringe author on the origin of Christopher Columbus, an IT help desk person at Duke University, Durham North Carolina. Frequently edited by IPs from Duke itself, Durham, or nearby Raleigh. I removed the statement "award-winning" and some so-called awards with an summary which says "removing trivial "awards" (one being only recognition, one from his employer Lockheed Martin, the Boston Globe award seems to exist virtually only in articles mentioning Rosa, so again too trivial to be here - to be used they should have their own article". It's all been restored an IP from Durham. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Jeff Rense ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Fringe BLP that seems to lack a lot of outside sources except to hate-site watchdog groups (yikes!). It appears that lately Rense has been letting more and more neo-Nazis on his webpage and radio show.
Shouldn't rense.com be blacklisted? I mean, what is it a reliable source for at all? [55]
jps ( talk) 18:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology.
Comment if you will. One of those interesting fringe theories that isn't pseudoscientific, just obscure.
jps ( talk) 14:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Fringe author, fringe book. I've clean up Moller's article a bit but left the editorial stuff in the book's article to others. I don't want the editor to think it's just me. I doubt that the book should have its own article, haven't checked Moller's notability. The edits to Jabal al-Lawz are very POV. Having said that, User:?Helenacan although not new only has made 1t edits so can't be expected o understand our policies. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw appears to be built upon fringe and primary sources. Is this even an appropriate fork from Trial of Clay Shaw? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 01:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
DGG, TFD: Thanks for the feedback. I have opened up a discussion in Talk:Trial of Clay Shaw#Merge requesting comments on whether or not the list should be merged. - Location ( talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Do we have enough of a group to tackle the walled garden to end-all walled gardens? The transhumanist collective?
I'll start with an article I looked into earlier today:
This led me to
Are all these institutes notable?
jps ( talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
There was the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity which may explain why this forest of poor sourcing exists, but apparently no one has actually done anything about this. I'm not sure I'm ready to dip my toe in. Should we try a trial deletion discussion or should we go full tilt? I'm sure there is a lot more related to these topics. jps ( talk) 00:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to try to get the ball rolling with this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longecity. That article has been tagged for three years now. jps ( talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So, now what do you have to say about this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies jps ( talk) 04:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The Life Extension Foundation may be noteworthy as a supplier of dubious supplements - David Gerard ( talk) 23:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going through Category:Transhumanism and its subcategories adding appropriate articles to {{ WikiProject Alternative Views}}, checking refs and cleaning up dubious ones, and PRODing the worst ones (anything I'd consider obviously AFDable). All assistance would be useful.
A common style of bad article I'm PRODing is a neologism for a common concept that already exists, and the article references support the thing referred to by the neologism but don't mention the neologism itself - David Gerard ( talk) 10:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longevism - David Gerard ( talk) 19:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I put a pile of alternative-views articles in this realm up for PROD. Some have been deproded with better sourcing, which is an excellent outcome. More eyes would be welcomed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Article alerts - David Gerard ( talk) 13:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.
This discussion is mentioned above, but the amount of argument that has erupted on the page is, well, noteworthy. Extra voices and eyes who have no irons in the fire would be greatly appreciated.
jps ( talk) 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Watts Up With That? ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A call to arms has been issued by the owner of the blog to right the wrongs that Wikipedia has been perpetuating against this fringe website.
Monitoring the semi-protected article and its associated talkpage would be appreciated. A lot of new and sleeper meatpuppet accounts have gone to work already.
jps ( talk) 02:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The controversy continues on, but there are some legitimate questions about the fact that Wikipedia has two articles: one on Watts and one on his blog. How to separate or not separate those two might be worth considering. Is Watts notable if not for his blog? I don't think so, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Is the blog notable if not for Watts? Again, I don't think so. Should there be two articles? jps ( talk) 15:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Grover Furr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page seem to be used for promoting fringe historical theories and a marginally notable conspiracy theorist. Most references are to unreliable sources, blogs, dead links, untranslated links on Chineese, etc. Some are links where author "disproves" even .... articles in Wikipedia [56] and disputes well established historical facts, such as execution of Polish officers by the NKVD, etc. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Gulf Breeze UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this hoax worthy of a standalone article? At the very least, can we get some better sourcing?
jps ( talk) 13:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
1976 Tehran UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "Remains one of the most well-documented military encounters with anomalous phenomena in history". Where to begin? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Sheehan (attorney) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This unsourced section: Daniel Sheehan (attorney)#Extraterrestrials and the Disclosure Project is mighty credulous. Do we have sources to write about this peculiar part of his legacy, or should the section simply be removed (along with the sentence in the lede)? Finding independent sourcing about this has been difficult.
jps ( talk) 12:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Miracle of the Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fringe interpretations being pushed [57]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 11:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zacherystaylor/The Fatima UFO Hypothesis - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? - Location ( talk) 01:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
A biography of a fringy physicist. The man hisownself was permanently blocked by Jimbo Wales back in 2005, but he keeps coming back to a) scream about how he's being libelled; and b) puff up his bio. Looks like he's back again. -- Calton | Talk 04:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Pam Reynolds case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Academic sources removed and stuff that "challenges the materialist view" from this outfit are repeatedly inserted . - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Jon Rappoport ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BLP of an "alternative journalist" that only cites primary source material. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 04:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
My eyes hurt. - Roxy the non edible dog™ ( resonate) 09:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this real? [58] [59] Logos ( talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Jessup's admittedly marginal notability is entirely dependent on the Philadelphia Experiment. Jerome Clark is the only UFOlogist to offer some detail of the man's career outside of that WP:ONEVENT, and that's really not enough to justify a standalone bio. Best thing would be to redirect and merge to Philadelphia Experiment, which already contains much of the content. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A relatively new editor is adding [62], a conspiracy website pushing the "Obama administration and their alliance with the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood." junk. [63]. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Rodney Stich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Per an earlier brief discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Stich. - Location ( talk) 10:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Food_Babe - yes, I did say that (and I did not hear it from anyone else first and don't know of any mentions before that), but I don't count myself much of an authority. Guy ( Help!) 17:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this book, replete with fringe theories and written by the white supremacist, Michael H. Hart, notable enough for an article? I can really only find reviews in the white supremacist circles.
For that matter, is Michael H. Hart himself notable enough for a biography?
jps ( talk) 17:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Related, anyway: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia. We should continue to discuss the other articles more relevant to WP:FRINGE for possible adjustment. jps ( talk) 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
To get this back on track, whether the book is fringe, or Hart is a white supremacist, or his ranking method is stupid and arbitrary has nothing to do with whether there should be an article on the book. The only relevant question is whether there is evidence of notability. After all Mein Kampf is a blue link. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
An IP has determined that since Rupert Sheldrake and Brian Josephson treat parapsychology as science, the article should be framed as if only skeptics view it as a pseudoscience. Additional views are welcome. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The Sheldrake Summer Squad has come again to attempt to argue that presenting in detail and unchallenged the claims from Sheldrakes books is appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there's a complaint at the biographies of living persons noticeboard from a notable person who doesn't like being called "fringe" even at an article talk page.
I think Wikipedia's nomenclature in this area is horrendous. We call a Sasquatch/UFO theory "fringe" which is fine, but then we insist on calling virtually every other non-mainstream theory "fringe" as well. This is a recipe for confusion and indignation. To top it all off, WP:Fringe offers a set of examples that are only of the Sasquatch/UFO type, thus undercutting the allegedly broad Wikipedia definition of "fringe". The whole thing is highly f*cked up, IMHO. Anythingyouwant ( talk),
I don't think that this is a particularly controversial definition of what is fringe. Your hypothetical rather proves the point, in my estimation. As for the discussion at BLPN, I am going to need some crib notes here to understand what you think the problem is. Apparently you think there is some idea that is being falsely labeled as "fringe", but I what I need you to do is identify what that particular idea is and why it is being so falsely labeled. Then we can see if its the guideline that's causing the problem or something else. jps ( talk) 21:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It's also a completely inaccurate interpretation of WP:FRINGE. The guideline spends quite some time detailing "alternative theoretical formulations" and explaining how they are not pseudoscience, and, while they should be compared to the mainstream, shouldn't be dismissed as pseudoscience. The key word in "an idea that departs significantly" is "significantly". It's the difference between, say, species selection (controversial, but not fringe) and creationism (pseudosience) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, more and more contemporary politics is intersecting with pseudoscience and other fringe theories. Global warming, GMOs, creationism, historical revisionism, nationalist mythologies, and alternative medicine are just a few of the areas that intersect with politics. Of course, the political questions associated with these controversies are only incidental to the WP:FRINGE aspects of these ideas. If a country decides to start a government astrologer post, that's not a WP:FRINGE issue, per se. The facts related to whether the astrologer is able to predict the future or not are, however. jps ( talk) 15:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This edit says, "Classifying Alternative Medicine as pseudoscience... Wikipedia is on a misinformation campaign against alternative health and the healing arts... Natural health deserves fair representation.... We’re going to set the record straight. We need your help and invite you to get involved in the process. Please check the various reward levels to discover how to participate."
An editor on the alt med talk page suggested more is needed on these kind of marketing schemes by alt med promoters, to create the illusion of scientific justification, biological plausibility, or that there may be energies undiscovered by physics that alt med studies can reveal by "systematic reviews" that admit to using imperfect studies, yet get published as showing efficacy anyway. Does anyone have RS sources for these marketing strategies? FloraWilde ( talk) 15:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (2nd nomination)
Comment, please.
jps ( talk) 23:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Following up on the consensus gap in the BLPN discussion above, I've started a place for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Does_WP:FRINGE_establish_any_unique_guidelines.3F about how WP:FRINGE fits in the overall ecosystem of WP policies. Rhoark ( talk) 21:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I have posted a question on WP:RSN regarding the use of RT.com in RT in CIA–al-Qaeda controversy. - Location ( talk) 20:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
A very odd article on a complete separate vascular system missed by all the "conventional" anatomical texts, discovered in 1962 and "confirmed" half a century later by a group of people who - purely coincidentally - seem to eb vested in promoting the doctrine of meridians in acupuncture. Guy ( Help!) 14:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Ufology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has anyone looked at the sprawling mass that is ufology lately? It is atrocious — full of original research and references to deleted articles along with what seems like reams of coatracked content.
I'm not even sure where to begin with a rewrite. Is there any social science text written on this subject which describes the particular pathological thinking that leads people to think of UFOs as worthy of serious consideration? I have occasionally crossed paths with people who argued as much, but when I press them they tend to run away from my specific inquiries.
Help!
jps ( talk) 03:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
List of people associated with vaccination ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people associated with vaccination
The article apparently originated here back in 2011, so dropping a notice here for anyone involved. Kolbasz ( talk) 13:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)