This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Robert S. Mendelsohn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biography of a doctor who "viewed modern medicine as an idolatrous religion" and who "questioned the necessity and safety of many childhood vaccinations", sourced entirely to the man's own books. It's impossible to tell from the current state of the article which parts of his teachings were reasonable criticisms (e.g. unnecessary radiation exposure in the US in the '60s) and which parts were fringe medical beliefs (e.g. antivax). Kolbasz ( talk) 12:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
In the article acerola, on a tropical fruit, does source 5, an article in the journal Fruits, meet WP:MEDRS? It is used to support the idea that the Vitamin C in the fruit is more easily absorbed than synthetic Vitamin C. I would have thought that unlikely, or unknowable, or dependent on the amount of each consumed? Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Folks here might be interested in helping clean up this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
After-death communication ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've tried redirecting to Mediumship citing the insufficient notability of this particular term, but the user who added translations of a German Wikipedia page won't let go. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
DavidWestT ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a couple of hundred edits, many of which have been reverted as promoting fringe ideas (e.h. at Bircham International University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). I suspect that this is not going to end well, but perhaps someone with tact and patience could counsel him? Guy ( Help!) 07:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Guy I added the Bear's Guide citation, removed William Martin, and clarified in three places that BIU is unaccredited. The page needs work, and yes, less promotion. DavidWestT ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael Corbin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Paranet Continuum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Corbin hosted Paranet Continuum, but I'm not finding coverage in reliable secondary sources. Feedback from others, particularly those familiar with the usual UFO-related sujects, is requested. - Location ( talk) 03:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought this is a fringe theory proposed by a marginal politician, who has never been an academic scientist, and never seriously discussed as a real academic hypothesis. However, the lede makes an impression this is an established concept. Does anybody know more about this?-- Ymblanter ( talk) 12:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a meme made famous on the internet and has entered into the common parlance of punditry. It has not been validated as an actual phenomenon and it should not be contextualized as a "political science theory", I agree. jps ( talk) 17:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
We have an editor on this article who thinks it is slander to call it a hoax (despite reliable sources), took it out of category hoaxes, etc. Please keep an eye on it. Thanks. I don't think they understand NPOV (or in fact OR). Doug Weller ( talk) 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Repeated blankings of all critical material. Some talk page discussion. More eyes needed - David Gerard ( talk) 10:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone here remembers Colon-el-Nuevo, but this has just been posted to my talk page:
Colon-el-Nuevo is back
I did a thorough search on Colon El Nuevo [1] and other profiles created by him. This is the complete list:
The same change to the text of the Wikipedia page:
Haven't looked at it yet to decide if an SPI is appropriate, but if anyone remembers this guy this information might be useful. Doug Weller ( talk) 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of historians think that Christopher Columbus was Genoese. Examples include: Ballesteros Beretta, Manzano, Navarrete, Munoz, Duro, Asensio, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Morales Padron, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, Milhou, Serrano y Sanz to name a few. For Colon-el-Nuevo (and numerous fake profiles) the opinion of historians "is nothing." His favourite historian... the IT analyst Manuel Rosa. -- Daedalus&Ikaros ( talk) 13:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the opening Lost Cause of the Confederacy is written in a way that suggests that there is historical support for the view that the American Civil War was not actually about slavery. In reality, this view has no historical support whatsoever, and in fact, historians view it as a myth invented to justify the slavery and racism of the American South. There is currently a discussion on this at Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy#Important minority viewpoint Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 01:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
A fermented tea for which some health claims are made, and which some sources describe as being suspected of harmful (even very harmful) side effects. There have been some heated exchanges on this in recent days, and some editors are holding that describing kombucha as being associated with fatalities is a "fringe" view falling under WP:FRINGE. Wise eyes from fringe-savvy editors may help. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ca2james nails how mainstream science treats these case reports - and WP needs to be in-line with mainstream science. Since there are number of RSs to choose from which properly reflect this, and raise concerns about the possible harms of kombucha, this is easily done. Our article is looking in pretty good shape now wrt health. The fringe claims are not those around kombucha's safety profile, but around the widespread scams (which one can see for oneself with some simple googling) based around assertions that kombucha will cure cancer, etc. Readers coming to Wikipedia need to find accurate health information here. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is like a stub. Needs some work. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: the death. I think it is an interesting fact about kombucha. I'm not convinced it is lede-worthy because, frankly, there are lots of things that people eat and drink for fun and non-existent health benefits that have caused deaths and we don't tend to highlight those in other articles, as far as I know -- especially not when the number of deaths is at least one. I don't think there is enough evidence to say that the dangers associated with kombucha are any greater than those of any other highly fermented drink (compare, e.g., kvass), but the difference here, obviously, is that the drink is often explicitly pushed as a health tonic. I think the current version of the lede is pretty good, in all honesty. jps ( talk) 16:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason the article is short is because there are very few reliable sources on the topic. There could be high quality books available to expand the page.. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
"The consumption of Kombucha has been associated with some adverse effects including muscle inflammation, poisoning, infection, and the death of at least one person.[16][17][2] Some adverse health effects may be due to the acidity of the tea; brewers have been cautioned to avoid over-fermentation.[18]"
I think these two sentences can be improved without the word "some". Not sure why the word "some" is used in both sentences. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The following sentence was deleted from the article. A 2003 Edzard Ernst systematic review found that the mostly unclear benefits do not outweigh the known risks. [15] QuackGuru ( talk) 03:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I am uninvolved and not a medical editor, but I have a background in chemistry. There do not need to be clinical trials of kombucha itself to evaluate health benefits; if the compounds it contains are present in high enough concentrations and those compounds have well-established health benefits, the claim can be made. Both the presence and the activity of the compounds (vitamin C, for example) can be established with existing literature. This does not allow the article to ascribe the health benefits directly to the drink; it should be in the form "X contains Y, which does Z."
The usnic acid content of kombucha scares me. I was reminded of aflatoxin, a poison produced by fungi that occasionally contaminates crops. I have to leave it to someone else to research the usnic acid content of kombucha products further. If the risk of a batch of kombucha being contaminated with dangerous levels of usnic acid is, say, 1 × 10-12, eventually someone will die from that toxin.
Several editors have pointed out that other foods have associated risks, implying that any risks associated with kombucha would be acceptable ones. (It may be the case that this is an acceptable risk to almost everyone, but if it is a known risk, it should be discussed here.) I'm reminded of FDA's term GRAS, " generally recognized as safe". I can't speak for the editors here, of course, but many kombucha drinkers believe the drink removes 'toxins' from the body. Among those toxins are, presumably, the chemicals on FDA's GRAS list. Other foods carry risks, but we shouldn't treat the usnic acid content of kombucha any differently than we treat the mercury content of salmon. Roches ( talk) 01:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Pfeiffer_Treatment_Center this stub seems to unduly promote a fringe theory. 82.132.245.114 ( talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Could I please get a third opinion on the include-ability of multiple shooter conspiracy theories related to the 2012 Aurora shooting? The most recent thread is Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#default to include verified diverging content. VQuakr ( talk) 19:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
More eyes seem needed on the article Domestic violence against men. There have been multiple attempts over the last couple of weeks to delete the last paragraph of the Gender Symmetry section and replace it with primary sourced content. The longstanding content states that domestic violence is considered a more severe public health problem for females, as they are more likely to be severely injured or killed via intimate partner violence than vice versa. However, multiple attempts have been made to delete this and replace it with a string of primary sources that state the opposite –that males are more likely to suffer severe injury at the hands of females via domestic violence, or else just as likely. This appears to be a theory promoted by the Men's rights movement, that to my understanding is considered a fringe theory, but the edits appear to attempt to promote this as widely accepted and factual in Wikipedia’s voice. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 14:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Crisis actor (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
There's a great deal of chatter amongst certain groups about crisis actors -- supposed people who show up at various incidents (mostly mass shootings and bombings) whose presence proves in the eyes of conspiracy theorists a connectedness and stagedness to these events. There's a lot of Snopes pieces discussing crisis actors claims. Seems like a noteworthy fringe subject. Blessings!! Pandeist ( talk) 15:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This was in a discussion relating to Sandy Hook recently. IIRC the deleted article Predictive programming was discussed right after the Sandy Hook one, and it made more direct reference to crisis actors.
There should be an article on this. If there isn't, then it can be alleged that Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy, a legitimate concern in some fringe areas. If there is an article, then at least there is an opportunity to try to describe the phenomenon objectively. Roches ( talk) 12:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Spammy and replete with poorly-sourced medical claims as is, but - should there even be an article on Scottish Herbal Remedies? - seems a bit regional ... Alexbrn ( talk) 08:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This article seems to have deteriorated since it was last raised here, and is seeing activity from a new account alongside the graphology content at Projective test. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion over at ANI involving an editor accused of aggressively promoting fringe/conspiracy theories. The discussion can be found here for those interested. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Intellect amplification ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some sort of WP:OR quantum fringe theory. Synthesis of sources given. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:AUTHOR may apply. Some discussion in fringe sources, but I am unable to find coverage in reliable secondary sources. I am wondering if anyone is able to find something reliable upon which to build this article. - Location ( talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Besides the better-known Peak oil, there are articles claiming that the sky is falling not only over the oil refineries but over fields and mines of all other sorts:
This is just the list from Peak wheat, the one I found first. That article had a claim that wheat production in China was in trouble and that China would soon be the largest importer of wheat. Readily available statistics (I used indexmundi.com) showed that China produced, in 2014, 12 times more wheat than was imported by the largest importer, Egypt. I added this to the article, and I suspect many other peak claims do not hold up to a few minutes worth of scrutiny. Roches ( talk) 19:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael Frass ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a monograph on a homeopathy proponent that reads like a PR biography. Frass is probably notable but this article looks very promotional. Guy ( Help!) 21:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Bob Lazar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am trying to figure out whether this article is worth a WP:FRINGEBLP and, if so, what sources we should use for it. Right now it appears fairly bloated.
jps ( talk) 15:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The section at Arkaim#Klyosov findings is sourced only to Anatole Klyosov and not to any peer reviewed scientific journal. It's basically fringe and I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources. I just removed some stuff about Stonehenge which was even fringier. I could take this to NPOVN I guess. I took it to RSN and was told it wasn't a reliability issue as he's attributed. Arkaim has had a lot of weird claims made about it. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. There is an ongoing discussion at the talk page for Vani Hari which could use some input. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 23:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
An abysmal article, but is this a notable crank? Guy ( Help!) 12:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The prinicpal problem is that we have (or had: I removed them, but people are reverting a few) multiple citations to Lysov which are WP:PRIMARY sources for controversial or potentially claims, from someone whose views are clearly idiosyncratic, and the source is an online-only "journal" with no impact factor. This is nto remotely difficult. That is precisely the kind of content we should not include. Guy ( Help!) 09:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Saqqara Bird ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goes rapidly downhill after the lead, with the majority of the article dedicated to "Egyptian physician, archaeologist, parapsychologist and dowser" (yes, really) Khalil Messiha's idea that it was an ancient airplane. Even the more down-to-earth hypotheses are problematically sourced, with some apparent WP:OR/ WP:SYN going on. Kolbasz ( talk) 11:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
A very small number of editors seem determined ot minimise mention of the 2014 measles outbreak in Incidents at Disneyland Resort ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - using a variety of arguments that sound suspiciously like the excuses given by Jake Blues tot he mystery woman. Guy ( Help!) 14:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion on the talk page about the possibility of creating a subpage on which we could list articles that are frequently the object of pro-Fringe editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Fringe article that I've worked on. Creator just re-added material sourced to a blog. Doug Weller ( talk) 19:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Pseudoarchaeology is a fringe type of archaeology, not fringe science, as archaeology in English speaking countries is not taught as a science but as part of humanities or social sciences. I tried to change this but was reverted, and have started a discussion at Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology. I did this after reading the discussion on the talk page here about a new list, and my desire to have it as a separate subject at Wikiproject Skepticism. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Transhumanist politics - can we come up with a new form of existence for a political party, by claiming third-party sources citing a publicity campaign constitute RS verification for the claims made? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There are reliable sources for the CIA-Tepper Aviation connection (e.g. [19] [20]), however, anything CIA tends to drum up original research by fringe thinkers. My impression is that this article has been built upon a fair amount of primary source material and OR, but I'm hoping I can get additional opinions. (Not sure if this is related to Atlantic Gulf Airlines founded by Tom Tepper.) Thanks! - Location ( talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Dorothy Hunt, wife of Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt, died in the 1972 crash of United Airlines Flight 553 carrying $10,000. Depending upon who you believe, the money was earmarked for legal defense, an investment, or hush money. As incredible as it sounds, some people believe that the CIA brought down an airliner in Chicago in order to kill her. And if you believe Spartacus, apparently Robert J. Groden, Carl Oglesby, Peter Dale Scott, Sherman Skolnick, and Alan J. Weberman are among those who believe she was murdered. Question: Is a stand-alone article warranted or should this be redirected to United Airlines Flight 553#Conspiracy theories? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to United Airlines Flight 553 - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
A pro-acupuncture editor is insisting on tagging Acupuncture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as having a "systemic bias towards Western scientific sources". This is, of course, fatuous: there is no such thing as Western science, there's just science, and since acupuncture is portrayed as a medical intervention rather than a religion then core policy means that scientific sources are exactly where we should source most content. You might as well tag evolution as having a sysmtemic bias towards materialist scientific sources. Guy ( Help!) 06:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeking additional input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rodney Stich. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 02:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The article on Scientology is stale and undergoing revision and peer review. There's no active dispute or editwars, we're just seeking advice (or aid) on improving the article. Feoffer ( talk) 08:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
William S. Donaldson wrote a report (i.e. the Donaldson Report) stating that terrorists brought down TWA Flight 800 via two missiles and that there was a conspiracy to cover it up. Do either of these articles have stand-alone notability, or should they be redirected to TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
In Talk:United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, additional opinions are requested regarding the inclusion of material about Willem Oltmans and his claims regarding George de Mohrenschildt. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 23:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Fred Crisman was a hoaxer. He made claims that led to the " Maury Island incident" (see previous discussions on WP:FTN here and here), then he and other said he was involved in the assassination of JFK. Regarding the first, I find a trivial mention in GNews. [21] Regarding the second, he is briefly mentioned as "Fred Lee Chrisman" in the HSCA's report discussion of the three tramps. [22] Everything else appears to come from fringe sources or primary sources (i.e. Jim Garrison's investigation). Is there enough for a stand-alone article or should this be redirected? - Location ( talk) 04:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Mr Bill Truth ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a one-man press office for Gary Null. The "films" on which he has been creating articles are of course anti-science propaganda. Guy ( Help!) 10:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be almost entirely sourced to very biased sources. The standard historical crank page - lots of praise, no mainstream commentary. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Ourang Medan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A fringe feast of spicy speculation and rancid sources featuring a dash of WP:OR for flavor. Includes an EL link to what's obviously a crank letter received by the CIA labeled as a "CIA memo" on the subject. Bon appetit! - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Mr Bill Truth has been writing promotionally about Gary Null and his films, film festivals that show his films, as well as anti-GMO topics and PSCI/altmed generally. After seeing this thread at the FRINGE noticeboard, i approached MBT on his Talk page here, asking about any connection with external interests relevant to his editing, which did not go well. I have had content disputes with MBT so this is not surprising. It may be that there is no COI and MBT is using Wikipedia for advocacy; COI is a subset of advocacy. I will not comment here further and will leave this for the community to discuss. I have notified MBT of this discussion. Jytdog ( talk) 11:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I have AfD'd a couple more of the articles (italics). I think this user is a bit of a problem. Guy ( Help!) 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World According to Monsanto.
Looks like it may be functioning as a fringe soapbox for anti-GMO positions, but I could have missed something or perhaps cleanup is possible.
jps ( talk) 12:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Crop circle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Despite the fact that there are no reliable sources from the last decade or so which indicate that there is any controversy whatsoever about the fact that human beings create crop circles, it seems that some editors would sincerely like to hold out hope for an alternative explanation. More help there would be appreciated. (The claim that simply asserting that humans create crop circles is "too sweeping" is particularly precious.)
jps ( talk) 19:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to get the lede to conform to what we know about crop circles. I expect more pushback as apparently I'm a "hard-line skeptic" or something. jps ( talk) 16:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, and now we have User:Ghughesarch writing in the lede that a list of crop circles published by the Guardian somehow shows that it isn't clear whether humans made all the crop circles or not. [25]. jps ( talk) 14:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Dream Focus seems to think that Sara C. Nelson is a reliable source for the contention that some crop circles are not of human origin. [26] Why do we let people who uncritically accept dreck such as that make reverts on these kinds of articles? jps ( talk) 03:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Wrong venue: this should be at Talk:Crop circle, and I would like more people to contribute there because we do need to come up with a para that everyone can agree is neutral, or formulate an RfC with a couple of potential ones and settle the matter. This seems to me to be something on which reasonable people may differ so there's no need to make it a battle when it could instead be a collaboration. Guy ( Help!) 20:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Newport Tower (Rhode Island) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should the fringe speculation about this tower appear in the lede? Seems
unduly weighted to me.
jps ( talk) 02:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that you cannot accept the WP:MAINSTREAM description of this landmark in the lede. "More accurate" is really just "more fringe". Can someone else help deal with this person? It's tiresome. jps ( talk) 04:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Enneagram of Personality ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has survived very long without any criticism from independent sources, specifically those clarifying its pseudoscientific status. I have added the mainstream view and sources to the lead but expect it may be resisted by some folks sitting on the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Likely passes WP:BIO, but some of the sources look a bit sketchy. - Location ( talk) 03:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Enfield Poltergeist ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ghughesarch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Apparently traveling about from crop circles to poltergeists, friends, it seems like we've got a case of a concern troll true believer in the paranormal.
jps ( talk) 20:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not, actually, I just don't like the sort of aggressive skepticism you are pushing, apparently unaware that it's not a neutral point of view. Ghughesarch ( talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It was more than just a "conclusion". They systematically showed why it was a hoax. If "revealed" is a weasel word, it's because it gives the simple exposure of the hoax too much import. The debunking was rather simple and mundane, to be honest. jps ( talk) 12:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
[27] And now we have claims that we cannot say that the skeptics "showed" that this is a "hoax" but rather that they "concluded" it. Why is that? The source uses the word "conclude" only because the summary is found at the end of the article in the conclusion, but it is pretty clear all along the way that what the most reliable sources are doing is showing how this is a hoax. Are we offending the sensibilities of the reader by using simple wording and pointing out that skeptics showed this case was a hoax? I'm really at a loss for why editors are so fond of such delicate kid-glove handling of what's clearly a poorly executed hoax. jps ( talk) 12:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently parked at the article are the two fringe-POV-supporting editors who responded in this thread who are in favor of marginalizing the facts of the matter (that skeptics and magicians showed that the case was a hoax). Help breaking through this nonsense would be appreciated. jps ( talk) 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
While I thank User:LuckyLouie for allowing the baton to be passed to him, I am a bit concerned that the current lede violates WP:ITA in the sense that it may imply that only the named sceptics believe it to be a hoax when, in reality, that's the only solid evidence we have for what this "manifestation" is. Can someone who isn't likely to be knee-jerk reverted make a pass at trying to mitigate this problem? jps ( talk) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't give equal validity to facilely incorrect claims. That's the angle. jps ( talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Giving equal validity to paranormal believers is against Wikipedia policy. jps ( talk) 13:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not surprising that the two investigators who preferentially believe in psychic powers and ghost stories were the ones who credulously accepted the claims while the ones who tended to take skeptical stances did not. The reader deserves to know about this kind of confirmation bias. jps ( talk) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Punchline to this whole imbroglio is that we have a lede right now that I think is marginally better than what was there before. The problem as I see it is that there seems to be an implicit agreement that the opinions of the most popular members of the Society for Psychical Research are somehow most worthy of our attention. If we take WP:MAINSTREAM seriously, then we should be paying most attention to the mainstream opinions on this topic -- namely that this incident was a hoax with too much attention drawn to it by a credulous group of wishful thinkers and breathless journalists. We still have something of a equal validity problem in our lede as we are referencing the opinions of two members of the Society whose opinions are based on superstition and credulity rather than careful consideration of the possibilities associated with this haunting. In other words, Wikipedia is paying too close attention to the breathless claims when it should instead be explaining what this incident actually is. Sure, we should mention that there was a lot of sensation surrounding this story, but we would be remiss to even insinuate that this is anything like an "on one hand/on the other" situation. The lede is slightly better at this right now, but I don't think that Maurice Grosse and Guy Lyon Playfair deserve top billing. To be clear, I think that the consensus of the investigators who are currently most seriously writing on this topic is that this is a classic hoax combined with media sensation. We could do a better job at getting the lede to say this. jps ( talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Almost certainly spam, and very likely to be the usual natural woo, but please review. Guy ( Help!) 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This looks to be every bit as scientific as graphology, and somewhat less so than the polygraph, but that may just be a function of a not-terribly-good article. Guy ( Help!) 00:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I apologize in advance for taking up so much room with this one, but it appears on a page that receives 2,000 to 3,000 hits per day. The following appears in Gerald Ford#Warren Commission:
This section appears to be cherry-picking at its finest. First, footnote #1 does not support the sentence it is citing; it is simply a rehashing of the conspiracy theory that Ford "moved the wound" using primary sources. Secondly, footnote #2 refers to an earlier version of this book, which is the Warren Commission report with a forward by Ford published by Tim Miller's The FlatSigned Press. It does support the sentence it is citing, but it is cherry-picking given that the entire forward is Ford's rejection of conspiracy theories. (BTW, Miller is a CT whose PR release incredibly cherry-picks the same sentence!) Footnotes #3, #4, and #5 refer to Ford's communications with Cartha DeLoach only 3 to 4 weeks after the assassination, which he disclosed publicly to the HSCA in 1978 testimony. [29] I am at a loss to explain why it has so much weight in the article other to give the impression that Ford and the FBI were in cahoots to sway the outcome of the investigation. (The point about two Commission members not being sure about FBI findings is unremarkable since their investigation had just started at that point.)
I see major changes as being necessary, however, I am a bit reluctant to be bold on such a highly watched page. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 05:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Not a fringe theory issue. Try WP:BLPN or WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN depending on what the specific concern might be. jps ( talk) 13:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It seems a lot of Quiverfull supporters have descended on Josh Duggar and are attempting to sanitize it. Could use some eyes. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, what does this have to do with fringe theories exactly?
jps (
talk) 12:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Yin yoga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A "good article" that uncritically claims that this practice improves the flow of qi without pointing out that there is no evidence that qi exists. Should it be a "good article"?
jps ( talk) 18:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In any case, I went through the article and was pretty appalled:
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Yin yoga/1.
jps ( talk) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Skepticism about the virgin birth? You better believe that has a place in Wikipedia as that obviously didn't happen. But I think that subject is handled pretty well where I've seen it discussed in Wikipedia. As far as I know, however, there aren't any articles on specific faith healing practices which mention hypothesized benefits through virgin birthing. The issue here is one of uncritical application of an idea for which there is no evidence with pseudoscientific justifications for those applications (e.g. saying that a particular practice is "hypothesized to improve" some sort of medical ailment is bad practice when there is no verifiable evidence-based hypothesis to consider -- and, no, the pseudoscientific speculations found in "Yoga Journal" do not count).
If you wanted to make a comparison between this and Christianity, the closest I can think of is in an article like baraminology where the claims of the "researchers" in that subject are subject to the fact that the very basis of their ideas is not evidence-based in spite of the pseudoscientific justifications they offer.
jps ( talk) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Article claims Kersten build the Georgia Guidestones, based on a film by a conspiracy theorist. [30]. Now up for AfD. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Brian Josephson is reacting gleefully to the news that Rossi has secured a US patent - for a water heater, with no mention whatsoever of the fact that it's a perpetual motion device. I think it's safe to say that Rossi is on the lookout for more marks for his scam. Guy ( Help!) 23:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
More eyes on the Microwave auditory effect and Electronic harassment articles would be welcome - we've had a contributor trying to add some dubiously-sourced content to both, and since he/she was warned for edit-warring, an IP and a 'new' account have joined in. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Presidents of the American Psychiatric Association ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A list of presidents, providing little information on most, but a great deal of unsourced material on the (claimed) involvement of several individuals with MKULTRA. How much of this (if any) is true, I don't know, but it needs scrutiny by someone familiar with the topic, and probably a great deal of trimming. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Eunice Murray ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article gives heavy weight to a lone pro-conspiracy book as well as having a large number of unsourced pro-conspiracy statements. Edward321 ( talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Jose Sanjenis Perdomo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Death of John Lennon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Speaking of "unsolved" deaths, Death of John Lennon states:
In Jose Sanjenis Perdomo, I've reverted my own edits and added tags for the time being. The two sources citing material related to John Lennon do not appear to mention this person. One of them states that Jay Hastings was the doorman. (The remaining source — written by Hinckle and Turner who have a history linked to a few sensational allegations — appears to further fringe theories. [34]) A search does reveal reliable sources stating that Jose Perdomo was the name of the doorman, however, none of them state that he was a Cuban secret police or CIA agent. I'm not sure that this person is even notable, but he is/was probably not the doorman at the Dakota. (There is a relevant edit here.) Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 04:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
References
Dark flow ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An article obviously written by either authors of the 2008 paper or enthusiastic supporters of that paper. Thing is, since Planck came out there isn't much of a leg to stand on for that point. The criticism section (ugh.) documents points that are not well-integrated into the article. The paper is moderately well-cited and appeared in a respectable journal, but this whole thing has the flavor of WMAP anomaly papers that were all the rage last decade (and made fun of a bit by the WMAP team when they pointed out that Stephen Hawking's initials could be found in the CMB). In any case, what to do with this article? It doesn't really deserve merging into any other articles I could find, but it also doesn't seem to be particularly article-worthy.
Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 02:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Time slip ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WP:OR and synthesis used to create the impression that time slips are real but disputed phenomena, with "cases" and "characteristics" given as evidence. I doubt that "time slip" has any notability in reliable sources outside of mention in a few fictional works. Suggest a REDIRECT to Time travel. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Nancy Carole Tyler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Carole Tyler is another peripheral figure in a conspiracy theory. Her name is associated with a notable payoff scandal involving her boss, Bobby Baker, that could have ended LBJ's political career. The JFK assassination ended the investigation, then Tyler "mysteriously" died in a plane crash shortly thereafter. I guess the conspiracy theory is that she leaked news that JFK was going to replace LBJ on the 1964 ticket: JFK tells George Smathers, Smathers tells his secretary Mary Jo Kopechne, Kopeche tells Tyler (because they are roommates in a house owned by Baker), Tyler tells Baker, Baker tells LBJ. Of course LBJ doesn't want that. Tyler came unhinged (i.e. threaten to talk) when Baker didn't leave his wife her, and was killed. There was nothing mysterious about Mary Jo's later death... she was threatening to talk and the powers that be needed the loose ends tied up. I LOVE this stuff!
Question: Keep, redirect to Bobby Baker, or delete? (A previous discussion said "keep": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Carole Tyler.) - Location ( talk) 18:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This had dropped off my watchlist but looking at it just now for the first time in a while it seems there is a growing NPOV issue since the fringe components of the education system are now hardly mentioned or contextualized. There is also some puffy writing in my view. I have commented at Talk:Waldorf education#NPOV redux – more eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Note there is now An RfC on this issue. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Moberly-Jourdain incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Currently an edit war to define a supernatural claim as an actual "incident". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I have asked for a good article reassessment here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Moberly–Jourdain incident/1. jps ( talk) 12:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
These two individuals have only WP:ONEEVENT (above) they are notable for. There isn't any material on them that's not already covered by the main article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 11:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Chromosome 2 (human) is a current creationist target, took a week to remove the last edit entirely and the edit before that was also reverting creationist opinion. I have opned a talk page thread but the page needs eyes as an article like this shouldnt be a vehicle for creationist propaganda even for a week, IMO. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting to second-guess my understanding of what constitutes an appropriate redirect. There is a fringe theory that ISIS actually mans "Israeli Secret Intelligence Service" (or using that acronym specifically to draw a connection between The Islamic State and Mossad). Someone created a redirect, pointing Israeli Secret Intelligence Service to the ISIS article. As the target article doesn't mention that name and as it's a not a common name for Mossad (the vast majority of sources that use it do so to make a connection based on its initialism), I nominated it for deletion ( Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_4#Israeli_Secret_Intelligence_Service). Hopefully posting here doesn't constitute canvassing, but I'm wondering what standard operating procedure is in this sort of situation. There are a couple sources that suggest the acronym has been used to refer to Mossad in the past, but they're few and generally quite poor. Someone looking for this name is going to be looking for the Islamic State connection rather than Mossad, and keeping the redirect with either target (neither of which, again, mention it) seems to legitimate the connection. ...I hope I'm not jumping into something I'm going to regret jumping into here -- these are not topic areas I often edit (I just happened across this redirect earlier today and thought it strange). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
List of unsolved deaths ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am hoping someone can take a closer look at List of unsolved deaths as there appear to be some deaths that are "solved" in the eyes of officials but disputed by those who hold fringe views. The article is danger of becoming List of disputed deaths. For example, Army officer Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald was convicted for the 1970 murders of his wife and daughters, but some authors say he didn't do it. As another, a coroner ruled that the death of William Colby, the former director of the CIA, was accidental, but others state it was foul play or suicide. My removal of these names from the lists was reverted as "disputed".( diff) Others are Dorothy Kilgallen, Bruce Lee, and Jim Morrison. I guess the assassination of JFK is "unsolved" because it, too, is disputed. - Location ( talk) 00:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
A long time ago, I think, someone started a list of unsolved murders, but I guess someone else felt it was too small and merged it into the larger list, which is now carrying a lot more than its name implies.
No, I wouldn't consider the Kennedy assassination "disputed", since it was, after all, an assassination—there's no dispute about how he died: homicidal gunshot wounds.
As for the rest of this dispute I'll take it up on the talk page. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Borley Rectory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yes, I know England loves its ghost stories, but I think Wikipedia's voice cannot be used to declare that "paranormal events apparently occurred", refer to claims as "mysteries", and casually state 'facts' like, "on one occasion, Adelaide was attacked by something horrible". My light copyedits for NPOV have been reverted. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I've opened discussion on the talk page. Note that Liverpress has been blocked as a sock. - Location ( talk) 22:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Gemmotherapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Didn't know this was a thing until today. Any thoughts on what to do with it?
jps ( talk) 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Jean-Claude Rodet, discussed above, links to gemmotherapy. This website about gemmology gives a good idea of what it's about. It is macerated plant matter mixed with glycerin. It's not homeopathically diluted, as far as I can see, but it's not evidence-based and the doses of any useful compounds would be negligible. My inclination is to merge into Herbalism, without images and without the literature section.
A note: That site calls Hahnemann's dilution method "isotherapy" instead of the more usual "homeopathy." Roches ( talk) 04:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
References
Is this quack notable or not? The article is shockingly bad, and the sources seem to be primary or tangential. Guy ( Help!) 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The article in French is tagged with {{primary sources}} and I put that tag on the English article. The French article is better than the English one, I think; it presents the biography in prose rather than as a timeline. Translating the whole French article might be pointless if there is no basis for an article. However, one bit of the French article was definitely worth translating: in 2004, a professional organization in Quebec found that Rodet was practicing agronomy/agricultural engineering without a license. The judgment contains the line (my translation): "In 1990, we emphasize, the OAQ refused to recognize the equivalency of [Rodet's] foreign diplomas." Accordingly, I removed Rodet from the categories of Canadian and French academics. Roches ( talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I would think a French degree would be recognized, too. "Doctor of Agronomic Sciences" is listed as a possible degree in Argentina at Doctor of Science, but doctorates in science are rare in the UK. And I'd expect someone to mention their undergraduate institution as well, if they were trying to say they had the necessary qualifications. I would not expect a dictionary definition. It is also very unusual for someone to have three doctorates in different things. Searching for Rodet at the New York Academy of Sciences gives no results. That is about all I can do to look into it. Roches ( talk) 14:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Mike "Health Danger" Adams posted a spittle-flecked rant against Wikipedia on his webshite: www.naturalnews.com/051060_wikipedia_Jimmy_Wales_extortion_racket.html unreliable fringe source?. I anticipate an influx of flying monkeys. Guy ( Help!) 08:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles
Page-watchers here may find cause to add their comments on what they think might be appropriate for this hot-button area.
jps ( talk) 17:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
There's currently yet again a person edit warring to put in dubious information and editorial bias from the Starchild Project website. Pretty obviously a single purpose account. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
James Files ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James Files says he was one of Kennedy's assassins. An IP has been editing the article to replace reliable sources with unreliable sources, including 1) the addition of content that reiterates Files' claim to be a trained assassin as fact and 2) the removal of content in which the FBI stated his claims were not credible. - Location ( talk) 04:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
People on this notice board may interested in this RfC related how to cover poor scholarship. Talk:IQ_and_Global_Inequality#RFC:_Should_the_article_summarize_the_book.27s_argument.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Mathole Motshekga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was alerted to this WP:FRINGEBLP issue today. Is it really the case that this politician's peculiar ideas are what we need to spend most of the article discussing?
jps ( talk) 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
User:BlackCab has used a WP:SYNTH from a variety of critical ex-Jehovah's Witnesses sources and secular sources to make a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that "The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses incited opposition to pursue a course of martyrdom under Rutherford's leadership during the 1930s, in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society, and to convince members that persecution from the outside world was evidence of the truth of their struggle to serve God". He has reverted my recent edit accusing me of an SPA (which has been notified to admin page) and belittling my concerns in the talk page. There is no evidence given in the sources how the leadership instructed JWs to pursue martyrdom. Its a blatant Synthesis. He combines source from three ex-JWs and two secular sources not peer reviewed to make a single false claim in the main article of JWs. I want to notify this here. ---- Roller958 ( talk) 04:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Anyone want to rewrite this which presents a person in a story as real? [38] was removed as a source for a critical comment, but the only fact is that Al-Masudi presents this as a story known by every Spaniard and that Al-Masudi casts doubt upon the possibility of crossing the Atlantic before mentioning this story. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
A user called Thundergodz has just deleted a load of references from the Lamarckism article, claiming they are 'unreliable'. The sources include Jerry Coyne and David Gorski. Am I missing something here? Why have these been deleted? I am going to re-add these sources. If it is true and these are unreliable then feel free to revert me. A little angry ( talk) 17:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Vani Hari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think this talk page could use some more eyes. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 20:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Not sure this is needed in addition to Anthroposophic medicine, but from the current article you'd hardly know that the underlying concepts were as absurd as they are, as reported in non-fringe RS. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
While looking for GA articles related about animal products used in alt med (to assist in a rewrite of Velvet antler), I found this stub article. "...This also leads to controversy about the validity of TCM, which comes from the difficulty of translating and lack of knowledge about TCM concepts and Chinese culture. So, to avoid conflict and to keep an open mind, one must realize that these notions evolved in a different culture and are a different way of viewing the human body."
I think a complete rewrite is in order. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Larry Dossey ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was brought to my attention by a fantastic new editor A little angry ( talk · contribs). I see the issue: the WP:FRINGEBLP exists in a space where much of the sourcing is laudatory of his fringe claims. If people could help clean it up a bit (having a "reception" section in a BLP is a bit weird, for starters, but I'm not sure what more can be done).
jps ( talk) 19:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in this. I think Dossey is important because he is a well known pseudoscience proponent like Rupert Sheldrake. There is a big piece by Victor Stenger and a physician Jeffrey Bishop that heavily criticizes Dossey for abusing quantum physics, misrepresenting medical studies etc
Retroactive Prayer: Lots Of History, Not Much Mystery, And No Science, Jeffrey P. Bishop and Victor J. Stenger. British Medical Journal. Vol. 329, No. 7480 (Dec. 18 - 25, 2004), pp. 1444-1446. There are also three negative reviews for his books in the Skeptical Inquirer. So far I only added one. I can help on this article but there will be a lot of criticism in the article about Dossey's pseudoscientific ideas. The user who created the article may object to me doing this (so far he seems to want the article 'balanced' with positive things about Dossey from mainly newspapers), so I will hold for now. See what other users think. I don't want to write an entirely negative bio for this guy but practically all the scientific sources written by experts dismiss him as a quack. I found some positive things about his books in religious journals but these don't seem that reliable to me. A little angry ( talk) 20:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Earth system science ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There may be some unduly weighted borderline material in this article which seems to spend quite a bit of time discussing the Gaia hypothesis which, depending on how deeply you dig, may or may not be a bit fringe-y itself (certainly some of Lynn Margulis's and James Lovelock's ideas after a time were way out on a limb).
Anyway, some experienced editors would be welcome at that page to see what, if anything, they can do to improve it.
jps ( talk) 23:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Join the discussion at Talk:Faith_healing#Pseudoscience_inclusion Raymond3023 ( talk)
A RfC here asks whether Frank Gaffney can be identified as a "conspiracy theorist" in his BLP or not. LavaBaron ( talk) 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Center for Security Policy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't know if this falls within the purview of FT or not so am throwing this out there to get feedback and advise on resolution. The Center for Security Policy is a group self-identifying as a "think tank" that has been widely derided for propagating "conspiracy theories." Recently an IP editor has started aggressively rewriting the article to recraft those descriptions as follows: "The Center's hard line views—especially on radical Islam—have caused it and the Center's founder and President, Frank Gaffney, Jr., to be reviled by the left which has accused the Center of Islamophobia and propagating conspiracy theories." The IP editor has also liberally peppered the article with inline off-Wiki links to the CSP website, expunged traces of the withering criticism the CSP has come under, and inserted weasel words like "free speech advocate" as the descriptor for Lars Hedegaard (whom the New York Times describes as an "anti-Islam polemicist" [40]). LavaBaron ( talk) 21:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with liberal sources. I just object to people posting biased hit pieces. You claimed my edits were to sanitize, used an SPA, accused me of using a sock puppet and accused me of COI after I made changes to two items that did not remove your critical but poorly sourced material. You did reverted all edits to two articles made by numerous editors. Wow! There must be something Wikipedia can do about your abusive and biased editing. Zeke1999 ( talk) 01:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron stating "...an IP editor making substantially identical edits" is not correct. While such tools (on wmflabs.org) designed to determine editor interaction can be useful, those do not necessarily show the actual truth and most certainly do not show "making substantially identical edits" (nor do the diffs, except if perhaps selecting only an undo of RBK - to try to make a point(?), which could well be disingenous or whatever else explains). 99.170.117.163 ( talk) 05:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, the mention of "...within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits" is erroneous. Also, the diff provided to illustrate "inserting in-text links" is merely where Zeke1999 undid the undo that LavaBaron had done on my undo of his mass RBK of the article to where LavaBaron's last edit was made, which removed material added by several editors - the IP most certainly not related to Zeke1999, nor any other editors). 99.170.117.163 ( talk) 05:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
People with an interest in how content related to scientific claims are presented may be interested in the newly opened arbitration case. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology
This AfD was closed "no consensus". I find the article Self-creation cosmology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to still be very problematic. We need either a cleanup or a new AfD, in my opinion.
Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
That's way above my pay grade. - Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 00:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment:
Talk:Self-creation cosmology#RfC: Redirect?
jps (
talk) 20:41, 26 September 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. |
Robert S. Mendelsohn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biography of a doctor who "viewed modern medicine as an idolatrous religion" and who "questioned the necessity and safety of many childhood vaccinations", sourced entirely to the man's own books. It's impossible to tell from the current state of the article which parts of his teachings were reasonable criticisms (e.g. unnecessary radiation exposure in the US in the '60s) and which parts were fringe medical beliefs (e.g. antivax). Kolbasz ( talk) 12:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
In the article acerola, on a tropical fruit, does source 5, an article in the journal Fruits, meet WP:MEDRS? It is used to support the idea that the Vitamin C in the fruit is more easily absorbed than synthetic Vitamin C. I would have thought that unlikely, or unknowable, or dependent on the amount of each consumed? Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Folks here might be interested in helping clean up this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
After-death communication ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've tried redirecting to Mediumship citing the insufficient notability of this particular term, but the user who added translations of a German Wikipedia page won't let go. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
DavidWestT ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a couple of hundred edits, many of which have been reverted as promoting fringe ideas (e.h. at Bircham International University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). I suspect that this is not going to end well, but perhaps someone with tact and patience could counsel him? Guy ( Help!) 07:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Guy I added the Bear's Guide citation, removed William Martin, and clarified in three places that BIU is unaccredited. The page needs work, and yes, less promotion. DavidWestT ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael Corbin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Paranet Continuum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Corbin hosted Paranet Continuum, but I'm not finding coverage in reliable secondary sources. Feedback from others, particularly those familiar with the usual UFO-related sujects, is requested. - Location ( talk) 03:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought this is a fringe theory proposed by a marginal politician, who has never been an academic scientist, and never seriously discussed as a real academic hypothesis. However, the lede makes an impression this is an established concept. Does anybody know more about this?-- Ymblanter ( talk) 12:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a meme made famous on the internet and has entered into the common parlance of punditry. It has not been validated as an actual phenomenon and it should not be contextualized as a "political science theory", I agree. jps ( talk) 17:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
We have an editor on this article who thinks it is slander to call it a hoax (despite reliable sources), took it out of category hoaxes, etc. Please keep an eye on it. Thanks. I don't think they understand NPOV (or in fact OR). Doug Weller ( talk) 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Repeated blankings of all critical material. Some talk page discussion. More eyes needed - David Gerard ( talk) 10:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone here remembers Colon-el-Nuevo, but this has just been posted to my talk page:
Colon-el-Nuevo is back
I did a thorough search on Colon El Nuevo [1] and other profiles created by him. This is the complete list:
The same change to the text of the Wikipedia page:
Haven't looked at it yet to decide if an SPI is appropriate, but if anyone remembers this guy this information might be useful. Doug Weller ( talk) 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of historians think that Christopher Columbus was Genoese. Examples include: Ballesteros Beretta, Manzano, Navarrete, Munoz, Duro, Asensio, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Morales Padron, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, Milhou, Serrano y Sanz to name a few. For Colon-el-Nuevo (and numerous fake profiles) the opinion of historians "is nothing." His favourite historian... the IT analyst Manuel Rosa. -- Daedalus&Ikaros ( talk) 13:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the opening Lost Cause of the Confederacy is written in a way that suggests that there is historical support for the view that the American Civil War was not actually about slavery. In reality, this view has no historical support whatsoever, and in fact, historians view it as a myth invented to justify the slavery and racism of the American South. There is currently a discussion on this at Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy#Important minority viewpoint Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 01:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
A fermented tea for which some health claims are made, and which some sources describe as being suspected of harmful (even very harmful) side effects. There have been some heated exchanges on this in recent days, and some editors are holding that describing kombucha as being associated with fatalities is a "fringe" view falling under WP:FRINGE. Wise eyes from fringe-savvy editors may help. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ca2james nails how mainstream science treats these case reports - and WP needs to be in-line with mainstream science. Since there are number of RSs to choose from which properly reflect this, and raise concerns about the possible harms of kombucha, this is easily done. Our article is looking in pretty good shape now wrt health. The fringe claims are not those around kombucha's safety profile, but around the widespread scams (which one can see for oneself with some simple googling) based around assertions that kombucha will cure cancer, etc. Readers coming to Wikipedia need to find accurate health information here. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is like a stub. Needs some work. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: the death. I think it is an interesting fact about kombucha. I'm not convinced it is lede-worthy because, frankly, there are lots of things that people eat and drink for fun and non-existent health benefits that have caused deaths and we don't tend to highlight those in other articles, as far as I know -- especially not when the number of deaths is at least one. I don't think there is enough evidence to say that the dangers associated with kombucha are any greater than those of any other highly fermented drink (compare, e.g., kvass), but the difference here, obviously, is that the drink is often explicitly pushed as a health tonic. I think the current version of the lede is pretty good, in all honesty. jps ( talk) 16:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason the article is short is because there are very few reliable sources on the topic. There could be high quality books available to expand the page.. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
"The consumption of Kombucha has been associated with some adverse effects including muscle inflammation, poisoning, infection, and the death of at least one person.[16][17][2] Some adverse health effects may be due to the acidity of the tea; brewers have been cautioned to avoid over-fermentation.[18]"
I think these two sentences can be improved without the word "some". Not sure why the word "some" is used in both sentences. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The following sentence was deleted from the article. A 2003 Edzard Ernst systematic review found that the mostly unclear benefits do not outweigh the known risks. [15] QuackGuru ( talk) 03:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I am uninvolved and not a medical editor, but I have a background in chemistry. There do not need to be clinical trials of kombucha itself to evaluate health benefits; if the compounds it contains are present in high enough concentrations and those compounds have well-established health benefits, the claim can be made. Both the presence and the activity of the compounds (vitamin C, for example) can be established with existing literature. This does not allow the article to ascribe the health benefits directly to the drink; it should be in the form "X contains Y, which does Z."
The usnic acid content of kombucha scares me. I was reminded of aflatoxin, a poison produced by fungi that occasionally contaminates crops. I have to leave it to someone else to research the usnic acid content of kombucha products further. If the risk of a batch of kombucha being contaminated with dangerous levels of usnic acid is, say, 1 × 10-12, eventually someone will die from that toxin.
Several editors have pointed out that other foods have associated risks, implying that any risks associated with kombucha would be acceptable ones. (It may be the case that this is an acceptable risk to almost everyone, but if it is a known risk, it should be discussed here.) I'm reminded of FDA's term GRAS, " generally recognized as safe". I can't speak for the editors here, of course, but many kombucha drinkers believe the drink removes 'toxins' from the body. Among those toxins are, presumably, the chemicals on FDA's GRAS list. Other foods carry risks, but we shouldn't treat the usnic acid content of kombucha any differently than we treat the mercury content of salmon. Roches ( talk) 01:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Pfeiffer_Treatment_Center this stub seems to unduly promote a fringe theory. 82.132.245.114 ( talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Could I please get a third opinion on the include-ability of multiple shooter conspiracy theories related to the 2012 Aurora shooting? The most recent thread is Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#default to include verified diverging content. VQuakr ( talk) 19:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
More eyes seem needed on the article Domestic violence against men. There have been multiple attempts over the last couple of weeks to delete the last paragraph of the Gender Symmetry section and replace it with primary sourced content. The longstanding content states that domestic violence is considered a more severe public health problem for females, as they are more likely to be severely injured or killed via intimate partner violence than vice versa. However, multiple attempts have been made to delete this and replace it with a string of primary sources that state the opposite –that males are more likely to suffer severe injury at the hands of females via domestic violence, or else just as likely. This appears to be a theory promoted by the Men's rights movement, that to my understanding is considered a fringe theory, but the edits appear to attempt to promote this as widely accepted and factual in Wikipedia’s voice. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 14:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Crisis actor (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
There's a great deal of chatter amongst certain groups about crisis actors -- supposed people who show up at various incidents (mostly mass shootings and bombings) whose presence proves in the eyes of conspiracy theorists a connectedness and stagedness to these events. There's a lot of Snopes pieces discussing crisis actors claims. Seems like a noteworthy fringe subject. Blessings!! Pandeist ( talk) 15:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This was in a discussion relating to Sandy Hook recently. IIRC the deleted article Predictive programming was discussed right after the Sandy Hook one, and it made more direct reference to crisis actors.
There should be an article on this. If there isn't, then it can be alleged that Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy, a legitimate concern in some fringe areas. If there is an article, then at least there is an opportunity to try to describe the phenomenon objectively. Roches ( talk) 12:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Spammy and replete with poorly-sourced medical claims as is, but - should there even be an article on Scottish Herbal Remedies? - seems a bit regional ... Alexbrn ( talk) 08:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This article seems to have deteriorated since it was last raised here, and is seeing activity from a new account alongside the graphology content at Projective test. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion over at ANI involving an editor accused of aggressively promoting fringe/conspiracy theories. The discussion can be found here for those interested. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Intellect amplification ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some sort of WP:OR quantum fringe theory. Synthesis of sources given. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:AUTHOR may apply. Some discussion in fringe sources, but I am unable to find coverage in reliable secondary sources. I am wondering if anyone is able to find something reliable upon which to build this article. - Location ( talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Besides the better-known Peak oil, there are articles claiming that the sky is falling not only over the oil refineries but over fields and mines of all other sorts:
This is just the list from Peak wheat, the one I found first. That article had a claim that wheat production in China was in trouble and that China would soon be the largest importer of wheat. Readily available statistics (I used indexmundi.com) showed that China produced, in 2014, 12 times more wheat than was imported by the largest importer, Egypt. I added this to the article, and I suspect many other peak claims do not hold up to a few minutes worth of scrutiny. Roches ( talk) 19:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael Frass ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a monograph on a homeopathy proponent that reads like a PR biography. Frass is probably notable but this article looks very promotional. Guy ( Help!) 21:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Bob Lazar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am trying to figure out whether this article is worth a WP:FRINGEBLP and, if so, what sources we should use for it. Right now it appears fairly bloated.
jps ( talk) 15:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The section at Arkaim#Klyosov findings is sourced only to Anatole Klyosov and not to any peer reviewed scientific journal. It's basically fringe and I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources. I just removed some stuff about Stonehenge which was even fringier. I could take this to NPOVN I guess. I took it to RSN and was told it wasn't a reliability issue as he's attributed. Arkaim has had a lot of weird claims made about it. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. There is an ongoing discussion at the talk page for Vani Hari which could use some input. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 23:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
An abysmal article, but is this a notable crank? Guy ( Help!) 12:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The prinicpal problem is that we have (or had: I removed them, but people are reverting a few) multiple citations to Lysov which are WP:PRIMARY sources for controversial or potentially claims, from someone whose views are clearly idiosyncratic, and the source is an online-only "journal" with no impact factor. This is nto remotely difficult. That is precisely the kind of content we should not include. Guy ( Help!) 09:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Saqqara Bird ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goes rapidly downhill after the lead, with the majority of the article dedicated to "Egyptian physician, archaeologist, parapsychologist and dowser" (yes, really) Khalil Messiha's idea that it was an ancient airplane. Even the more down-to-earth hypotheses are problematically sourced, with some apparent WP:OR/ WP:SYN going on. Kolbasz ( talk) 11:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
A very small number of editors seem determined ot minimise mention of the 2014 measles outbreak in Incidents at Disneyland Resort ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - using a variety of arguments that sound suspiciously like the excuses given by Jake Blues tot he mystery woman. Guy ( Help!) 14:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion on the talk page about the possibility of creating a subpage on which we could list articles that are frequently the object of pro-Fringe editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Fringe article that I've worked on. Creator just re-added material sourced to a blog. Doug Weller ( talk) 19:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Pseudoarchaeology is a fringe type of archaeology, not fringe science, as archaeology in English speaking countries is not taught as a science but as part of humanities or social sciences. I tried to change this but was reverted, and have started a discussion at Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology. I did this after reading the discussion on the talk page here about a new list, and my desire to have it as a separate subject at Wikiproject Skepticism. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Transhumanist politics - can we come up with a new form of existence for a political party, by claiming third-party sources citing a publicity campaign constitute RS verification for the claims made? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There are reliable sources for the CIA-Tepper Aviation connection (e.g. [19] [20]), however, anything CIA tends to drum up original research by fringe thinkers. My impression is that this article has been built upon a fair amount of primary source material and OR, but I'm hoping I can get additional opinions. (Not sure if this is related to Atlantic Gulf Airlines founded by Tom Tepper.) Thanks! - Location ( talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Dorothy Hunt, wife of Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt, died in the 1972 crash of United Airlines Flight 553 carrying $10,000. Depending upon who you believe, the money was earmarked for legal defense, an investment, or hush money. As incredible as it sounds, some people believe that the CIA brought down an airliner in Chicago in order to kill her. And if you believe Spartacus, apparently Robert J. Groden, Carl Oglesby, Peter Dale Scott, Sherman Skolnick, and Alan J. Weberman are among those who believe she was murdered. Question: Is a stand-alone article warranted or should this be redirected to United Airlines Flight 553#Conspiracy theories? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to United Airlines Flight 553 - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
A pro-acupuncture editor is insisting on tagging Acupuncture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as having a "systemic bias towards Western scientific sources". This is, of course, fatuous: there is no such thing as Western science, there's just science, and since acupuncture is portrayed as a medical intervention rather than a religion then core policy means that scientific sources are exactly where we should source most content. You might as well tag evolution as having a sysmtemic bias towards materialist scientific sources. Guy ( Help!) 06:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeking additional input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rodney Stich. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 02:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The article on Scientology is stale and undergoing revision and peer review. There's no active dispute or editwars, we're just seeking advice (or aid) on improving the article. Feoffer ( talk) 08:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
William S. Donaldson wrote a report (i.e. the Donaldson Report) stating that terrorists brought down TWA Flight 800 via two missiles and that there was a conspiracy to cover it up. Do either of these articles have stand-alone notability, or should they be redirected to TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
In Talk:United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, additional opinions are requested regarding the inclusion of material about Willem Oltmans and his claims regarding George de Mohrenschildt. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 23:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Fred Crisman was a hoaxer. He made claims that led to the " Maury Island incident" (see previous discussions on WP:FTN here and here), then he and other said he was involved in the assassination of JFK. Regarding the first, I find a trivial mention in GNews. [21] Regarding the second, he is briefly mentioned as "Fred Lee Chrisman" in the HSCA's report discussion of the three tramps. [22] Everything else appears to come from fringe sources or primary sources (i.e. Jim Garrison's investigation). Is there enough for a stand-alone article or should this be redirected? - Location ( talk) 04:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Mr Bill Truth ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a one-man press office for Gary Null. The "films" on which he has been creating articles are of course anti-science propaganda. Guy ( Help!) 10:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be almost entirely sourced to very biased sources. The standard historical crank page - lots of praise, no mainstream commentary. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Ourang Medan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A fringe feast of spicy speculation and rancid sources featuring a dash of WP:OR for flavor. Includes an EL link to what's obviously a crank letter received by the CIA labeled as a "CIA memo" on the subject. Bon appetit! - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Mr Bill Truth has been writing promotionally about Gary Null and his films, film festivals that show his films, as well as anti-GMO topics and PSCI/altmed generally. After seeing this thread at the FRINGE noticeboard, i approached MBT on his Talk page here, asking about any connection with external interests relevant to his editing, which did not go well. I have had content disputes with MBT so this is not surprising. It may be that there is no COI and MBT is using Wikipedia for advocacy; COI is a subset of advocacy. I will not comment here further and will leave this for the community to discuss. I have notified MBT of this discussion. Jytdog ( talk) 11:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I have AfD'd a couple more of the articles (italics). I think this user is a bit of a problem. Guy ( Help!) 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World According to Monsanto.
Looks like it may be functioning as a fringe soapbox for anti-GMO positions, but I could have missed something or perhaps cleanup is possible.
jps ( talk) 12:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Crop circle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Despite the fact that there are no reliable sources from the last decade or so which indicate that there is any controversy whatsoever about the fact that human beings create crop circles, it seems that some editors would sincerely like to hold out hope for an alternative explanation. More help there would be appreciated. (The claim that simply asserting that humans create crop circles is "too sweeping" is particularly precious.)
jps ( talk) 19:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to get the lede to conform to what we know about crop circles. I expect more pushback as apparently I'm a "hard-line skeptic" or something. jps ( talk) 16:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, and now we have User:Ghughesarch writing in the lede that a list of crop circles published by the Guardian somehow shows that it isn't clear whether humans made all the crop circles or not. [25]. jps ( talk) 14:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Dream Focus seems to think that Sara C. Nelson is a reliable source for the contention that some crop circles are not of human origin. [26] Why do we let people who uncritically accept dreck such as that make reverts on these kinds of articles? jps ( talk) 03:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Wrong venue: this should be at Talk:Crop circle, and I would like more people to contribute there because we do need to come up with a para that everyone can agree is neutral, or formulate an RfC with a couple of potential ones and settle the matter. This seems to me to be something on which reasonable people may differ so there's no need to make it a battle when it could instead be a collaboration. Guy ( Help!) 20:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Newport Tower (Rhode Island) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should the fringe speculation about this tower appear in the lede? Seems
unduly weighted to me.
jps ( talk) 02:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that you cannot accept the WP:MAINSTREAM description of this landmark in the lede. "More accurate" is really just "more fringe". Can someone else help deal with this person? It's tiresome. jps ( talk) 04:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Enneagram of Personality ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has survived very long without any criticism from independent sources, specifically those clarifying its pseudoscientific status. I have added the mainstream view and sources to the lead but expect it may be resisted by some folks sitting on the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Likely passes WP:BIO, but some of the sources look a bit sketchy. - Location ( talk) 03:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Enfield Poltergeist ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ghughesarch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Apparently traveling about from crop circles to poltergeists, friends, it seems like we've got a case of a concern troll true believer in the paranormal.
jps ( talk) 20:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not, actually, I just don't like the sort of aggressive skepticism you are pushing, apparently unaware that it's not a neutral point of view. Ghughesarch ( talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It was more than just a "conclusion". They systematically showed why it was a hoax. If "revealed" is a weasel word, it's because it gives the simple exposure of the hoax too much import. The debunking was rather simple and mundane, to be honest. jps ( talk) 12:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
[27] And now we have claims that we cannot say that the skeptics "showed" that this is a "hoax" but rather that they "concluded" it. Why is that? The source uses the word "conclude" only because the summary is found at the end of the article in the conclusion, but it is pretty clear all along the way that what the most reliable sources are doing is showing how this is a hoax. Are we offending the sensibilities of the reader by using simple wording and pointing out that skeptics showed this case was a hoax? I'm really at a loss for why editors are so fond of such delicate kid-glove handling of what's clearly a poorly executed hoax. jps ( talk) 12:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently parked at the article are the two fringe-POV-supporting editors who responded in this thread who are in favor of marginalizing the facts of the matter (that skeptics and magicians showed that the case was a hoax). Help breaking through this nonsense would be appreciated. jps ( talk) 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
While I thank User:LuckyLouie for allowing the baton to be passed to him, I am a bit concerned that the current lede violates WP:ITA in the sense that it may imply that only the named sceptics believe it to be a hoax when, in reality, that's the only solid evidence we have for what this "manifestation" is. Can someone who isn't likely to be knee-jerk reverted make a pass at trying to mitigate this problem? jps ( talk) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't give equal validity to facilely incorrect claims. That's the angle. jps ( talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Giving equal validity to paranormal believers is against Wikipedia policy. jps ( talk) 13:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not surprising that the two investigators who preferentially believe in psychic powers and ghost stories were the ones who credulously accepted the claims while the ones who tended to take skeptical stances did not. The reader deserves to know about this kind of confirmation bias. jps ( talk) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Punchline to this whole imbroglio is that we have a lede right now that I think is marginally better than what was there before. The problem as I see it is that there seems to be an implicit agreement that the opinions of the most popular members of the Society for Psychical Research are somehow most worthy of our attention. If we take WP:MAINSTREAM seriously, then we should be paying most attention to the mainstream opinions on this topic -- namely that this incident was a hoax with too much attention drawn to it by a credulous group of wishful thinkers and breathless journalists. We still have something of a equal validity problem in our lede as we are referencing the opinions of two members of the Society whose opinions are based on superstition and credulity rather than careful consideration of the possibilities associated with this haunting. In other words, Wikipedia is paying too close attention to the breathless claims when it should instead be explaining what this incident actually is. Sure, we should mention that there was a lot of sensation surrounding this story, but we would be remiss to even insinuate that this is anything like an "on one hand/on the other" situation. The lede is slightly better at this right now, but I don't think that Maurice Grosse and Guy Lyon Playfair deserve top billing. To be clear, I think that the consensus of the investigators who are currently most seriously writing on this topic is that this is a classic hoax combined with media sensation. We could do a better job at getting the lede to say this. jps ( talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Almost certainly spam, and very likely to be the usual natural woo, but please review. Guy ( Help!) 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This looks to be every bit as scientific as graphology, and somewhat less so than the polygraph, but that may just be a function of a not-terribly-good article. Guy ( Help!) 00:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I apologize in advance for taking up so much room with this one, but it appears on a page that receives 2,000 to 3,000 hits per day. The following appears in Gerald Ford#Warren Commission:
This section appears to be cherry-picking at its finest. First, footnote #1 does not support the sentence it is citing; it is simply a rehashing of the conspiracy theory that Ford "moved the wound" using primary sources. Secondly, footnote #2 refers to an earlier version of this book, which is the Warren Commission report with a forward by Ford published by Tim Miller's The FlatSigned Press. It does support the sentence it is citing, but it is cherry-picking given that the entire forward is Ford's rejection of conspiracy theories. (BTW, Miller is a CT whose PR release incredibly cherry-picks the same sentence!) Footnotes #3, #4, and #5 refer to Ford's communications with Cartha DeLoach only 3 to 4 weeks after the assassination, which he disclosed publicly to the HSCA in 1978 testimony. [29] I am at a loss to explain why it has so much weight in the article other to give the impression that Ford and the FBI were in cahoots to sway the outcome of the investigation. (The point about two Commission members not being sure about FBI findings is unremarkable since their investigation had just started at that point.)
I see major changes as being necessary, however, I am a bit reluctant to be bold on such a highly watched page. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 05:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Not a fringe theory issue. Try WP:BLPN or WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN depending on what the specific concern might be. jps ( talk) 13:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It seems a lot of Quiverfull supporters have descended on Josh Duggar and are attempting to sanitize it. Could use some eyes. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, what does this have to do with fringe theories exactly?
jps (
talk) 12:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Yin yoga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A "good article" that uncritically claims that this practice improves the flow of qi without pointing out that there is no evidence that qi exists. Should it be a "good article"?
jps ( talk) 18:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In any case, I went through the article and was pretty appalled:
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Yin yoga/1.
jps ( talk) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Skepticism about the virgin birth? You better believe that has a place in Wikipedia as that obviously didn't happen. But I think that subject is handled pretty well where I've seen it discussed in Wikipedia. As far as I know, however, there aren't any articles on specific faith healing practices which mention hypothesized benefits through virgin birthing. The issue here is one of uncritical application of an idea for which there is no evidence with pseudoscientific justifications for those applications (e.g. saying that a particular practice is "hypothesized to improve" some sort of medical ailment is bad practice when there is no verifiable evidence-based hypothesis to consider -- and, no, the pseudoscientific speculations found in "Yoga Journal" do not count).
If you wanted to make a comparison between this and Christianity, the closest I can think of is in an article like baraminology where the claims of the "researchers" in that subject are subject to the fact that the very basis of their ideas is not evidence-based in spite of the pseudoscientific justifications they offer.
jps ( talk) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Article claims Kersten build the Georgia Guidestones, based on a film by a conspiracy theorist. [30]. Now up for AfD. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Brian Josephson is reacting gleefully to the news that Rossi has secured a US patent - for a water heater, with no mention whatsoever of the fact that it's a perpetual motion device. I think it's safe to say that Rossi is on the lookout for more marks for his scam. Guy ( Help!) 23:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
More eyes on the Microwave auditory effect and Electronic harassment articles would be welcome - we've had a contributor trying to add some dubiously-sourced content to both, and since he/she was warned for edit-warring, an IP and a 'new' account have joined in. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Presidents of the American Psychiatric Association ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A list of presidents, providing little information on most, but a great deal of unsourced material on the (claimed) involvement of several individuals with MKULTRA. How much of this (if any) is true, I don't know, but it needs scrutiny by someone familiar with the topic, and probably a great deal of trimming. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Eunice Murray ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article gives heavy weight to a lone pro-conspiracy book as well as having a large number of unsourced pro-conspiracy statements. Edward321 ( talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Jose Sanjenis Perdomo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Death of John Lennon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Speaking of "unsolved" deaths, Death of John Lennon states:
In Jose Sanjenis Perdomo, I've reverted my own edits and added tags for the time being. The two sources citing material related to John Lennon do not appear to mention this person. One of them states that Jay Hastings was the doorman. (The remaining source — written by Hinckle and Turner who have a history linked to a few sensational allegations — appears to further fringe theories. [34]) A search does reveal reliable sources stating that Jose Perdomo was the name of the doorman, however, none of them state that he was a Cuban secret police or CIA agent. I'm not sure that this person is even notable, but he is/was probably not the doorman at the Dakota. (There is a relevant edit here.) Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 04:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
References
Dark flow ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An article obviously written by either authors of the 2008 paper or enthusiastic supporters of that paper. Thing is, since Planck came out there isn't much of a leg to stand on for that point. The criticism section (ugh.) documents points that are not well-integrated into the article. The paper is moderately well-cited and appeared in a respectable journal, but this whole thing has the flavor of WMAP anomaly papers that were all the rage last decade (and made fun of a bit by the WMAP team when they pointed out that Stephen Hawking's initials could be found in the CMB). In any case, what to do with this article? It doesn't really deserve merging into any other articles I could find, but it also doesn't seem to be particularly article-worthy.
Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 02:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Time slip ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WP:OR and synthesis used to create the impression that time slips are real but disputed phenomena, with "cases" and "characteristics" given as evidence. I doubt that "time slip" has any notability in reliable sources outside of mention in a few fictional works. Suggest a REDIRECT to Time travel. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Nancy Carole Tyler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Carole Tyler is another peripheral figure in a conspiracy theory. Her name is associated with a notable payoff scandal involving her boss, Bobby Baker, that could have ended LBJ's political career. The JFK assassination ended the investigation, then Tyler "mysteriously" died in a plane crash shortly thereafter. I guess the conspiracy theory is that she leaked news that JFK was going to replace LBJ on the 1964 ticket: JFK tells George Smathers, Smathers tells his secretary Mary Jo Kopechne, Kopeche tells Tyler (because they are roommates in a house owned by Baker), Tyler tells Baker, Baker tells LBJ. Of course LBJ doesn't want that. Tyler came unhinged (i.e. threaten to talk) when Baker didn't leave his wife her, and was killed. There was nothing mysterious about Mary Jo's later death... she was threatening to talk and the powers that be needed the loose ends tied up. I LOVE this stuff!
Question: Keep, redirect to Bobby Baker, or delete? (A previous discussion said "keep": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Carole Tyler.) - Location ( talk) 18:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This had dropped off my watchlist but looking at it just now for the first time in a while it seems there is a growing NPOV issue since the fringe components of the education system are now hardly mentioned or contextualized. There is also some puffy writing in my view. I have commented at Talk:Waldorf education#NPOV redux – more eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Note there is now An RfC on this issue. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Moberly-Jourdain incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Currently an edit war to define a supernatural claim as an actual "incident". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I have asked for a good article reassessment here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Moberly–Jourdain incident/1. jps ( talk) 12:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
These two individuals have only WP:ONEEVENT (above) they are notable for. There isn't any material on them that's not already covered by the main article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 11:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Chromosome 2 (human) is a current creationist target, took a week to remove the last edit entirely and the edit before that was also reverting creationist opinion. I have opned a talk page thread but the page needs eyes as an article like this shouldnt be a vehicle for creationist propaganda even for a week, IMO. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting to second-guess my understanding of what constitutes an appropriate redirect. There is a fringe theory that ISIS actually mans "Israeli Secret Intelligence Service" (or using that acronym specifically to draw a connection between The Islamic State and Mossad). Someone created a redirect, pointing Israeli Secret Intelligence Service to the ISIS article. As the target article doesn't mention that name and as it's a not a common name for Mossad (the vast majority of sources that use it do so to make a connection based on its initialism), I nominated it for deletion ( Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_4#Israeli_Secret_Intelligence_Service). Hopefully posting here doesn't constitute canvassing, but I'm wondering what standard operating procedure is in this sort of situation. There are a couple sources that suggest the acronym has been used to refer to Mossad in the past, but they're few and generally quite poor. Someone looking for this name is going to be looking for the Islamic State connection rather than Mossad, and keeping the redirect with either target (neither of which, again, mention it) seems to legitimate the connection. ...I hope I'm not jumping into something I'm going to regret jumping into here -- these are not topic areas I often edit (I just happened across this redirect earlier today and thought it strange). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
List of unsolved deaths ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am hoping someone can take a closer look at List of unsolved deaths as there appear to be some deaths that are "solved" in the eyes of officials but disputed by those who hold fringe views. The article is danger of becoming List of disputed deaths. For example, Army officer Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald was convicted for the 1970 murders of his wife and daughters, but some authors say he didn't do it. As another, a coroner ruled that the death of William Colby, the former director of the CIA, was accidental, but others state it was foul play or suicide. My removal of these names from the lists was reverted as "disputed".( diff) Others are Dorothy Kilgallen, Bruce Lee, and Jim Morrison. I guess the assassination of JFK is "unsolved" because it, too, is disputed. - Location ( talk) 00:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
A long time ago, I think, someone started a list of unsolved murders, but I guess someone else felt it was too small and merged it into the larger list, which is now carrying a lot more than its name implies.
No, I wouldn't consider the Kennedy assassination "disputed", since it was, after all, an assassination—there's no dispute about how he died: homicidal gunshot wounds.
As for the rest of this dispute I'll take it up on the talk page. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Borley Rectory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yes, I know England loves its ghost stories, but I think Wikipedia's voice cannot be used to declare that "paranormal events apparently occurred", refer to claims as "mysteries", and casually state 'facts' like, "on one occasion, Adelaide was attacked by something horrible". My light copyedits for NPOV have been reverted. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I've opened discussion on the talk page. Note that Liverpress has been blocked as a sock. - Location ( talk) 22:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Gemmotherapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Didn't know this was a thing until today. Any thoughts on what to do with it?
jps ( talk) 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Jean-Claude Rodet, discussed above, links to gemmotherapy. This website about gemmology gives a good idea of what it's about. It is macerated plant matter mixed with glycerin. It's not homeopathically diluted, as far as I can see, but it's not evidence-based and the doses of any useful compounds would be negligible. My inclination is to merge into Herbalism, without images and without the literature section.
A note: That site calls Hahnemann's dilution method "isotherapy" instead of the more usual "homeopathy." Roches ( talk) 04:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
References
Is this quack notable or not? The article is shockingly bad, and the sources seem to be primary or tangential. Guy ( Help!) 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The article in French is tagged with {{primary sources}} and I put that tag on the English article. The French article is better than the English one, I think; it presents the biography in prose rather than as a timeline. Translating the whole French article might be pointless if there is no basis for an article. However, one bit of the French article was definitely worth translating: in 2004, a professional organization in Quebec found that Rodet was practicing agronomy/agricultural engineering without a license. The judgment contains the line (my translation): "In 1990, we emphasize, the OAQ refused to recognize the equivalency of [Rodet's] foreign diplomas." Accordingly, I removed Rodet from the categories of Canadian and French academics. Roches ( talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I would think a French degree would be recognized, too. "Doctor of Agronomic Sciences" is listed as a possible degree in Argentina at Doctor of Science, but doctorates in science are rare in the UK. And I'd expect someone to mention their undergraduate institution as well, if they were trying to say they had the necessary qualifications. I would not expect a dictionary definition. It is also very unusual for someone to have three doctorates in different things. Searching for Rodet at the New York Academy of Sciences gives no results. That is about all I can do to look into it. Roches ( talk) 14:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Mike "Health Danger" Adams posted a spittle-flecked rant against Wikipedia on his webshite: www.naturalnews.com/051060_wikipedia_Jimmy_Wales_extortion_racket.html unreliable fringe source?. I anticipate an influx of flying monkeys. Guy ( Help!) 08:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles
Page-watchers here may find cause to add their comments on what they think might be appropriate for this hot-button area.
jps ( talk) 17:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
There's currently yet again a person edit warring to put in dubious information and editorial bias from the Starchild Project website. Pretty obviously a single purpose account. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
James Files ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James Files says he was one of Kennedy's assassins. An IP has been editing the article to replace reliable sources with unreliable sources, including 1) the addition of content that reiterates Files' claim to be a trained assassin as fact and 2) the removal of content in which the FBI stated his claims were not credible. - Location ( talk) 04:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
People on this notice board may interested in this RfC related how to cover poor scholarship. Talk:IQ_and_Global_Inequality#RFC:_Should_the_article_summarize_the_book.27s_argument.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Mathole Motshekga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was alerted to this WP:FRINGEBLP issue today. Is it really the case that this politician's peculiar ideas are what we need to spend most of the article discussing?
jps ( talk) 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
User:BlackCab has used a WP:SYNTH from a variety of critical ex-Jehovah's Witnesses sources and secular sources to make a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that "The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses incited opposition to pursue a course of martyrdom under Rutherford's leadership during the 1930s, in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society, and to convince members that persecution from the outside world was evidence of the truth of their struggle to serve God". He has reverted my recent edit accusing me of an SPA (which has been notified to admin page) and belittling my concerns in the talk page. There is no evidence given in the sources how the leadership instructed JWs to pursue martyrdom. Its a blatant Synthesis. He combines source from three ex-JWs and two secular sources not peer reviewed to make a single false claim in the main article of JWs. I want to notify this here. ---- Roller958 ( talk) 04:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Anyone want to rewrite this which presents a person in a story as real? [38] was removed as a source for a critical comment, but the only fact is that Al-Masudi presents this as a story known by every Spaniard and that Al-Masudi casts doubt upon the possibility of crossing the Atlantic before mentioning this story. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
A user called Thundergodz has just deleted a load of references from the Lamarckism article, claiming they are 'unreliable'. The sources include Jerry Coyne and David Gorski. Am I missing something here? Why have these been deleted? I am going to re-add these sources. If it is true and these are unreliable then feel free to revert me. A little angry ( talk) 17:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Vani Hari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think this talk page could use some more eyes. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 20:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Not sure this is needed in addition to Anthroposophic medicine, but from the current article you'd hardly know that the underlying concepts were as absurd as they are, as reported in non-fringe RS. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
While looking for GA articles related about animal products used in alt med (to assist in a rewrite of Velvet antler), I found this stub article. "...This also leads to controversy about the validity of TCM, which comes from the difficulty of translating and lack of knowledge about TCM concepts and Chinese culture. So, to avoid conflict and to keep an open mind, one must realize that these notions evolved in a different culture and are a different way of viewing the human body."
I think a complete rewrite is in order. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Larry Dossey ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was brought to my attention by a fantastic new editor A little angry ( talk · contribs). I see the issue: the WP:FRINGEBLP exists in a space where much of the sourcing is laudatory of his fringe claims. If people could help clean it up a bit (having a "reception" section in a BLP is a bit weird, for starters, but I'm not sure what more can be done).
jps ( talk) 19:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in this. I think Dossey is important because he is a well known pseudoscience proponent like Rupert Sheldrake. There is a big piece by Victor Stenger and a physician Jeffrey Bishop that heavily criticizes Dossey for abusing quantum physics, misrepresenting medical studies etc
Retroactive Prayer: Lots Of History, Not Much Mystery, And No Science, Jeffrey P. Bishop and Victor J. Stenger. British Medical Journal. Vol. 329, No. 7480 (Dec. 18 - 25, 2004), pp. 1444-1446. There are also three negative reviews for his books in the Skeptical Inquirer. So far I only added one. I can help on this article but there will be a lot of criticism in the article about Dossey's pseudoscientific ideas. The user who created the article may object to me doing this (so far he seems to want the article 'balanced' with positive things about Dossey from mainly newspapers), so I will hold for now. See what other users think. I don't want to write an entirely negative bio for this guy but practically all the scientific sources written by experts dismiss him as a quack. I found some positive things about his books in religious journals but these don't seem that reliable to me. A little angry ( talk) 20:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Earth system science ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There may be some unduly weighted borderline material in this article which seems to spend quite a bit of time discussing the Gaia hypothesis which, depending on how deeply you dig, may or may not be a bit fringe-y itself (certainly some of Lynn Margulis's and James Lovelock's ideas after a time were way out on a limb).
Anyway, some experienced editors would be welcome at that page to see what, if anything, they can do to improve it.
jps ( talk) 23:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Join the discussion at Talk:Faith_healing#Pseudoscience_inclusion Raymond3023 ( talk)
A RfC here asks whether Frank Gaffney can be identified as a "conspiracy theorist" in his BLP or not. LavaBaron ( talk) 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Center for Security Policy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't know if this falls within the purview of FT or not so am throwing this out there to get feedback and advise on resolution. The Center for Security Policy is a group self-identifying as a "think tank" that has been widely derided for propagating "conspiracy theories." Recently an IP editor has started aggressively rewriting the article to recraft those descriptions as follows: "The Center's hard line views—especially on radical Islam—have caused it and the Center's founder and President, Frank Gaffney, Jr., to be reviled by the left which has accused the Center of Islamophobia and propagating conspiracy theories." The IP editor has also liberally peppered the article with inline off-Wiki links to the CSP website, expunged traces of the withering criticism the CSP has come under, and inserted weasel words like "free speech advocate" as the descriptor for Lars Hedegaard (whom the New York Times describes as an "anti-Islam polemicist" [40]). LavaBaron ( talk) 21:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with liberal sources. I just object to people posting biased hit pieces. You claimed my edits were to sanitize, used an SPA, accused me of using a sock puppet and accused me of COI after I made changes to two items that did not remove your critical but poorly sourced material. You did reverted all edits to two articles made by numerous editors. Wow! There must be something Wikipedia can do about your abusive and biased editing. Zeke1999 ( talk) 01:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron stating "...an IP editor making substantially identical edits" is not correct. While such tools (on wmflabs.org) designed to determine editor interaction can be useful, those do not necessarily show the actual truth and most certainly do not show "making substantially identical edits" (nor do the diffs, except if perhaps selecting only an undo of RBK - to try to make a point(?), which could well be disingenous or whatever else explains). 99.170.117.163 ( talk) 05:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, the mention of "...within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits" is erroneous. Also, the diff provided to illustrate "inserting in-text links" is merely where Zeke1999 undid the undo that LavaBaron had done on my undo of his mass RBK of the article to where LavaBaron's last edit was made, which removed material added by several editors - the IP most certainly not related to Zeke1999, nor any other editors). 99.170.117.163 ( talk) 05:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
People with an interest in how content related to scientific claims are presented may be interested in the newly opened arbitration case. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology
This AfD was closed "no consensus". I find the article Self-creation cosmology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to still be very problematic. We need either a cleanup or a new AfD, in my opinion.
Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
That's way above my pay grade. - Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 00:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment:
Talk:Self-creation cosmology#RfC: Redirect?
jps (
talk) 20:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)