This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Ross is a deprogrammer known for his part in the Jason Scott case.
1) Am I correct in assuming "deprogramming", "brainwashing", "cults", etc in the context of this BLP are all WP:FRINGE?
2) If so, are we currently presenting enough of the larger context and fringe nature of the worldview that Ross works within?
I brought up these questions at Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross#Fringe_issues, where we agreed that a WP:FTN discussion would help.
Rick Alan Ross ( talk · contribs) is arguing to change his article to present him as an expert in "cults", and to de-emphasize his "deprogramming" work as much as possible. The current talk page is almost entirely about various such proposals.
3) Are there similar articles where these issues have been given more attention that we could use as guides? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
(EC) The problem is that RAR is notable for his deprogramming and the high profile cases involved in that. However given the passing of time, that is not substantially all of his work. As Wikipedia works off of reliable sources, and his other accomplishments just do not have the weight (in sources) of his former career, any article will understandably be slanted towards his former job rather than his latter. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Can someone address the FRINGE concerns please? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure that it is helpful for the ongoing discussion of this BLP to be fragmented into three different places (the article talkpage, the BLP noticeboard, and here). On the substance of the WP:FRINGE issue, I am not sure what the discussion here is seeking to achieve in terms of the article content. Some people may have one from of Mr. Ross's activities and "worldview" and some may have a different view, but the relevant question here is how this affects what we say in the BLP about him? Editors should also bear in mind that unlike the usual "fringe theories being pushed" situations discussed on this noticeboard, in this case we are talking about the BLP of an individual who probably would just as soon not have an article at all. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't really my field, psychology, but, from what little I am able to understand, RAR has been, in the past, one of the primary players in the area of brainwashing, which, again, from what little I understand of this, is more or less a specific variant of operant conditioning, much like Stockholm syndrome. I am not myself really sure that "brainwashing" qualifies as fringe in the field of psychology, and am not myself sufficiently knowledgable about it to say anything one way or another. Since then, the individual has, apparently, been more regularly discussed in the broad field of "cultish" NRMs, a field which includes brainwashing in its history but also deals with more broad social, psychological, and cultural issues as well. I'm not sure I would say Ernest Hemingway is most notable for The Sun Also Rises, although that argument would seem to me to bear many of the same features as the one about whether RAR is "most notable" for deprogramming. Maybe an RfC, involving all the relevant specialties around here, might be useful? John Carter ( talk) 20:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the great discussion. I'd like to leave this (how to handle the fringe issues properly in the article) in others' hands. I've still a number of BLP/NPOV concerns (the poor sources, the lack of depth in the recent sources, WP:NOTNEWS, how we balance the heavily- and well-documented deprogramming work and outcome with the lightly- and poorly-documented work since. However, this isn't the venue if we can get the fringe issues fairly settled. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_May_25#NUCCA. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology has recently been created. I'm a bit suspicious, because searching for "nyambo" and "salt" doesn't return results that confirm the claims made in the article. Could some other editors take a look? Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I found this article in a shocking state - for example, it claimed that "On January 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court elected to pass over OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto, and let stand the Court of Appeals ruling, effectively ending the lawsuit giving the farmers a partial victory." That's rubbish. Monsanto won the case (e.g. Reuters), the farmers merely got a legally binding promise for Monsanto not to do something they never did anyway. See Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser where the "accidental" contamination claim was withdrawn and tests subsequently showed that 95%-98% of the crop was infringing.
Incidentally, the Reuters piece summarises the dispute nicely:
Appealing to the fact of lower court allowing the case, as some kind of rebuttal to the actual outcome? Er, right. These folks are very obviously using the bogeyman of prosecution for accidental contamination, which never has happened and apparently never will, as a Trojan horse to try to strike down seed patents altogether, something which is openly acknowledged within the crunchy community (e.g. [3]).
I do not know if this group is notable at all, or if the article should simply be a redirect tot he court case. The court case article, and several related ones, also need a careful review because this kind of spin is rampant wherever Monsanto is discussed on Wikipedia, as I think we all know. Guy ( Help!) 09:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Slowly but surely, we're climbing that mountain.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral Institute
jps ( talk) 00:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Related to the above:
Anyone think these articles deserve a place in Wikipedia? I almost put them up for deletion, but hesitated. jps ( talk) 23:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the article Integral Institute, there is an article integral theory (Ken Wilber), a navbox {{ Integral thought}}. I would suggest that it is worth taking a close look at the articles linking to the article integral thought, via what links here. In at least some cases, integral theory is linked from "mainstream" articles, probably in violation of WP:FRINGE. In other cases, we have walled garden articles that probably should be merged. We don't need dozens of articles on so-called "integral theory". Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_24#Template:Integral_thought is now live.
jps ( talk) 14:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
List of integral thinkers and supporters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This could use some intelligent reworking.
jps ( talk) 14:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program.
jps ( talk) 18:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Visser.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext.
You know the drill.
jps ( talk) 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This list was taken from the above biography. Not all of these biographies are problematic, but many are.
jps ( talk) 13:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Blatant fringe problems. Apparently notable for claiming plants have consciousness. Problem is, only fringe sources have been cited for this claim. For example there is a section that says "This Report supports the possibility that plants may respond to human consciousness as contended by Cleve Backster", the reference for this is Bird Tompkins authors of the pseudoscientific book The Secret Life of Plants, this is hardly reliable. The article also uses psychic websites like this [4] which are entirely unreliable. A large chunk of this article may have to be deleted. Any suggestions? HealthyGirl ( talk) 15:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. The article cites an awful lot of personal biographic info to these sources. I'd like to know if they are valid. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@ PermStrump: I have an article about him. Send me an email if you want it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Permstrump: Email me, I'll forward it to you. I don't have your email address, so I can't send it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure if he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Problem with the article is that his alleged miracle of being cured is presented as factual. Only religious or fringe books endorsing miracles as genuine seem to mention this guy. Seems to be a serious lack of reliable sources. Any suggestions? HealthyGirl ( talk) 05:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Faith healing via magical action of Our Lady of Lourdes is just as much pseudoscience as is any other faith healing claim. WP:MAINSTREAM refers to experts, and experts in the natural, physical, and medical worlds are basically in agreement that literal miracles of the sort argued for by true believers in many faiths simply do not happen. To argue otherwise is necessarily in the purview of WP:FRINGE. Just because major religions accommodate beliefs in fringe theories, doesn't mean that they are insulated from the injunction to write a serious encyclopedia. jps ( talk) 14:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
A deletion review OK'd the article to be recreated without the poorly-sourced "paranormal phenomenon" content, but now Time_slip#Paranormal is back. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
While brainwave entrainment (BWE) does seem to be at least a legitimate concept within RS, the topic area is also rife with fringe claims and our article on it seems full of OR. Anybody familiar with this topic area? Alexbrn ( talk) 05:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Not actually a tautology, it seems. Replete with Truths stated in Wikipedia's voice. Formerly a merge and redirect to Alice Bailey, I'm unsure if anything is salvageable from the more recent content. CIreland ( talk) 11:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
There's been some disagreement over adding the term scientific consensus to part of the WP:FRINGE guideline. More eyes from folks here familiar with scientific consensus and fringe theories would be appreciated at the talk page. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 02:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Stumbled upon the article for Answers in Genesis a few weeks back and noticed giant sections that rely almost entirely -- or entirely -- on primary sources. I removed a big section, but it's been restored. I'd welcome additional eyeballs to gauge the situation according to best practices. Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 4#Big sections with only primary sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Gilbert.
jps ( talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Khader ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Homeopathy, laetrile, diets to cure cancer. Would appreciate some other eyes on this article as I don't have much time for Wikipedia editing this week. Kolbasz ( talk) 16:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
And listed at AfD, as notability is dubious. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Khader ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
doh. - Roxy the dog™ woof 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I cleaned up the opening couple sentences, but still needs work. - ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Criticism of this guys quackery being deleted from the article. User claims there was a "consensus" to remove criticisms from the article on the talk-page, but there wasn't, because these new sources were added in April. HealthyGirl ( talk) 14:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This is the only radionics proponent on Wikipedia that I cannot find any reliable references for, any ideas? HealthyGirl ( talk) 20:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@ HealthyGirl: You could AfD it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The Creation Museum article could use attention from people knowledgeable about creationism promotion. The article does not appear to be neutral, with the content geared towards promotional, almost reading like the Museum's web page. Additional eyes on this article would be appreciated. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Randall Fontes was deleted, it is now back at User:Valoem/Randall Fontes. HealthyGirl ( talk) 05:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Requested move -- inputs from interested editors would be appreciated. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This article on Monica Ten-Kate, whose cold readings are broadcast on the ABC-owned Freeform network, is at risk of growing credulous... Would appreciate if those who have watchlisted Tyler Henry and applied appropriate skepticism would also pay ongoing attention to some of Monica's recent edits and (possibly) PR-motivated additions. Thanks. Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Bishonen: Thanks! This is probably going to be a problem, can you place a protection on this article if this continues? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This new user has only been around for 6 days and has created at least 6 articles already. These four are definitely very fringeworthy and seem of dubious notability to me. At least one of his articles appears to have been created by taking an article from Romanian Wikipedia and running it through Google Translate. Would appreciate some extra eyes. -- Krelnik ( talk) 01:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
ThePlatypusofDoom go ahead nominate all articles, but don't notify me on my talk page. Enjoy yourselves. X-Men XtremE 12:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The editor writing these fringey stubby articles seems to be lacking some wp:clue, and ability in english. - Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what's going on here. The user has been perm banned but before they were banned started renaming some of the articles:
HealthyGirl ( talk) 05:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 8#Fork article could use some more opinions. It might help to read a thread I started about it at WT:PSYCH#Anti-Psychiatry a few months ago when I was first trying to make sense of it. —PermStrump (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I am right in thinking this is a crank marketing term that has had the occasional revival after a well-publicised press release, but is basically a WP:ONEEVENT thing centred around the press release, right? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at WP:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms which is aiming to arrive at a cross-encyclopedia wording on the question of the scientific consensus on GMO food safety. Some of the considerations may cross into the realm of WP:FRINGE and so might be of interest to watchers of this noticeboard. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
At Talk:Anthroposophic medicine#Heart Hgilbert claims that "the heart is not a pump" is plausible and has a scientific basis because there is one book of one MD supporting it and one positive review of the book has been published with peer-review.
Here is the review. It should be noted that O'Leary is Furst's co-worker and they co-authored an article on the subject "the heart is not a pump", so support from O'Leary seems a walled garden and does not pass WP:FRIND. Do note that even according to the mentioned review, it is an axiom of medical science that the heart is a pump, so my claim is that "the heart is not a pump" is WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a problem with works that pass WP:RS with flying colors -- a book published by an academic publisher (Springer) and an article in a fully mainstream medical journal -- being termed "fringe". Fringe would seem to be that which is not accepted into the mainstream. Or, otherwise expressed, by WP standards, the fact that these publishers deem this work mainstream enough to publish makes them WP:RS, not fringe sources. This remains a minority view, of course, and I do not suggest that it should be presented as anything but that.
Since you apparently did not read it there, I copy below my response on the article talk page to the claim that Furst's work does not support Steiner's idea. @Shibbolethink probably had not looked at Furst's actual work when making this claim, as quite large sections of the book (including several whole chapters) are devoted to exactly this.
If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as 'originale investigationis'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing.
— WP:FLAT
see my comments at on the talk page about his credentials and some debunking of his credentials at [8]. I've reverted bogus claims twice tonight. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the correct venue. The article François Grin currently consists mainly (in terms of number of words) of discussion of a report advocating the use of Esperanto, a report variously called "the Grin report" or "Grin's report". In 2013 an article at Grin Report was deleted per the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grin Report. It was re-created at the same title a few weeks later and then speedily deleted. In 2014 essentially the same article was created at Grin's Report; it was also speedily deleted.
Last month (May 2016) User:Alekso92 added the thrice-deleted content to the biographical article with this edit. Apparently the content exists on Wikia.
The AfD did not contend that the theory is fringe per se, but was unable to find independent sources to establish notability. User:I JethroBT did, however, find two brief mentions of the report in presumed reliable sources. Also, User:DGG suggested prior to the deletion discussion that "Grin Report" be merged to "François Grin", which in effect Alekso92's edit has accomplished.
Currently "François Grin" cites the Grin report itself, as well as a petition and an article about Esperanto, but does not cite any third-party sources describing the report.
My own opinion is that brief mention of the report may be due in the article about its author, but attempts to smuggle back in the same deleted content without establishing its notability or its acceptability (i.e. non-fringe status) among language planning authorities or scholars is inappropriate. Cnilep ( talk) 01:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Over at loch ness monster, we've got a user repeatedly edit-warring to present cryptozoology in a positive light. The same user has made various anti-academic statements, including anti-global warming comments elsewhere, so this is hardly a surprise. Still, the article needs more eyes. Cryptozoology creep has long been a problem on Wikipedia and we really need more of a stern effort to relegate it to specific sections of articles per WP:UNDUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This AfD may be of interest to folks who lurk here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britt Marie Hermes. Montanabw (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Krelnik: Agreed. Although not quite BITEing, it's close. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to a comment on the talk page from an editor who couldn't adds category I added it for him. It was "Fictional languages" and almost immediately removed as being a PoV category. A bit odd as that seems the mainstream PoV so seems reasonable. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else."But you wouldn't really be able to present both sides with a category, so I'm not sure. —PermStrump (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
On a related note, the sourcing in this article is quite dubious. —PermStrump (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've been trying to remove the worst sources and unsourced items from List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia and List of reportedly haunted locations in Canada as well as rewording the remaining entries to a NPOV. A SPA completely reverted me on the first and some IPs have re-added some unsourced and poorly sourced items to the second. Edward321 ( talk) 00:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI: There is a spirited discussion going on in an RFC on the Talk page regarding this intelligent design guy - should the fact that ID is regarded as pseudoscience be mentioned in the lede of this BLP? -- Krelnik ( talk) 15:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted a fringe editor here once, could someone else explain to him about reliable sources and original research so they don't think it's just me? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Future_life_progression Jytdog ( talk) 12:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI to those who might know more about this guy, Jack Schwarz. He does not seem notable, but the list of books in the article is impressive looking. I detect fringe and promo issues all over. Delta13C ( talk) 19:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
More eyes will be appreciated: recent editing has been problematic. K.e.coffman ( talk) 14:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This may be slightly off-topic for this forum, but I've seen the editors who post here to be experienced with the topics of sourcing, neutrality, extraordinary claims, and level of detail in the articles, as well as general Wikipedia policies.
It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.
I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No action required, but just thought readers here would be interested in the dismissal of a lawsuit in France over an astrologer's BLP, covered on the Wikimedia blog here. Also, that same BLP has just been translated to English (here - Élizabeth Teissier) thanks to Adam Cuerden. -- Krelnik ( talk) 14:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This AFD is related to the Integral theory (Ken Wilber) articles that have come up on this noticeboard recently. jps nominated EnlightenNext for deletion a few weeks ago and it completely flew under the radar, so SwisterTwister just renominated it and I figured I'd mention it here, so the same thing doesn't happen again. —PermStrump (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
is an Australian political party pushing altmed and various conspiracy theories, edited here it seems by a party rep. Some edits pointing-out the bollocksy nature of their beliefs are being reverted; probably could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This page needs more watchlisters. It may also benefit from semi-protection, as it's gotten a fair bit of rather bad back-and-forth lately by IPs - you know the sort, one changes it to say homeopathy is not a pseudoscience, and to delete some ccriticism, the next comes along, and, instead of reverting to keep the cites, changes it to remove the POV-pushing, but now it's uncited, etc. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
(Crosspost from
WP:ANI)
Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_2:_.C3.89lizabeth_Teissier
Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier
We can't replace a simple, well-cited fact with promotion of astrology. DYK seems to have gone mad. This is not what I expected (or was ready) to see first thing in the morning after a bout of insomnia and jackhammers. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Some editors here may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Back to square one, about what the best practice is, if an editor removes WP:UNSOURCED material from an article in the belief (whether right or wrong) that the material cannot be verified in a reliable source (aka " WP:CHALLENGEs the material"). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's something different for you. In a HuffPo piece Kristofferson is reported to have chronic lyme disease [9]. That piece is commented on by David Gorski here. On the Talk page there is some disagreement about how all this should be reported here. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Came across this, another of the endless variants of somatic nonsense topics we seem to have. I trimmed some nasty POV and went looking for neutral sources to try and expand it but have drawn something of a blank. Anybody know more? Alexbrn ( talk) 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There has been a lot of activity at the article recently, and I have just done a mini re-write/clean-up which could probably benefit from a check by fringe-savvy editors. There is also an RfC running for this article which may be of interest. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Trey Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone delete this article? Looks to be pure WP:VANITY as well as a WP:FRINGEBLP.
73.38.255.229 ( talk) 05:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this a notable concept? I tried looking it up and can't figure out if the sources that use those two words in consecutive order are talking about the same concept as this article since the article is essentially a list in prose form of all of the times the phrase has appeared in writing (they missed at least one from the 1700s).
Same question about Neurotheology and the neurotheologist Andrew B. Newberg mentioned in the rational mysticism article. —PermStrump (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
B. Alan Wallace ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has been edit-warring to add the (obviously unsourced) claim that "vacuum state of consciousness" is a "concept originating in Buddhism". A source designates "vacuum state of consciousness" as quantum woo pseudobabble. (Unless we are in a time-travel paradox, the phrase can't come from ancient India.)
Undeterred by requests to read WP:NOR, the editor is also demanding that the perfectly acceptable secondary source be expunged and replaced by primary sources because the secondary source is "wrong". In any case I've made little headway on the talk page, so a third opinion would be appreciated. Manul ~ talk 20:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Needs more advanced opinions. Obviously fails WP:BIO, and since the guy is a WP:FRINGE careerist, I thought you all should be aware. Delta13C ( talk) 17:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
An IP just made a few edits that look like POV pushing to me, I'm at 2RR, could use a hand. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 01:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
What specifically did you need help with? I scanned the talk page and didn't find anything. Note that I feel strongly about bad science; when scientists use misleading or fraudulent language, the lies are like a rat infestation -- there are far more present than you will ever see. Roches ( talk) 18:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
BinaryPhoton ( talk · contribs) (who is suspiciosly promoting Randy Wayne in various places in wikipedia) created a section "scientific dissident" in article dissident. I doubt this section belongs here. " scientific dissident" is a fringe term. google gives less than 500 hits. I suspect it is nothing but a fashionable moniker adopted by fringe scientists. Please comment in talk:Dissident - üser:Altenmann >t 14:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
And now, just today, a new article was created: scientific dissent. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 03:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Scientific dissent ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A pseudoscientific essay in support of "scientific dissent" was penned here in Wikipedia. I deleted it. 73.38.255.229 ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Scientific dissent has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
73.38.255.229 (
talk) 19:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Technological singularity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - in its present state is transhumanist advocacy with a ton of blog-quality sources, all trying to make out that this purely hypothetical science fiction trope is a real-life thing that is immiment. Someone tried noting in the intro its science-fictional nature and was reverted; I did a rewrite of the intro so it sounds less like a blog article and essayed upon the long task of fixing the sourcing ... I removed a nonexistent unverifiable source, a blog, a seminar talk video equivalent to a self-sourced blog post, three redundant cites to the same IJ Good piece, and toned down some WP:PEACOCK terms ... and that was editing two paragraphs. More eyes would be most welcomed on the task of bringing this article up to Wikipedia scratch. Or saying that my approach is wrong and terrible if you think that. Discussion at Talk:Technological_singularity#SciFi - David Gerard ( talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Gujarat Ayurved University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article requires cleanup. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Got an IP continually adding fringe stuff about how this diet combats cancer. Could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This article could use some more eyes and some assistance. It needs a complete overhaul. I just started working on it and haven't been reverted yet, but it's the middle of the night in the US and based on the edit history, there seem to be some WP:OWN issues and all of the content additions for the past few years probably violate WP:FRINGE. Here's a clearly worded, reliable source on the topic to get your bearings. —PermStrump (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Quoting the first paragraph will likely be enough to demonstrate the problem.
“ | General semantics discourages the use of the copula "is" and as such it would be inconsistent to define it intensionally; however, general semantics allows for describing what it does. Thus, it identifies factors of sanity in the scientific breakthroughs achieved in aristotelian systems. Like geometry merging with analysis, analysis merges with general semantics. [1] Polish-American independent scholar Alfred Korzybski [2] (1879–1950) discussed general semantics for the first time in Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, which he published in 1933. | ” |
It's written entirely in-universe for what is an extremely fringe idea of language. Here's some other wonderful quotes:
By making it a 'mental' habit to find and keep one's bearings among the ordered stages, general semantics training seeks to sharpen internal orientation much as a GPS device may sharpen external orientation. Once trained, general semanticists affirm, a person will act, respond, and make decisions more appropriate to any given set of happenings. Although producing saliva constitutes an appropriate response when lemon juice drips onto the tongue, a person has inappropriately identified when an imagined lemon or the word "l–e–m–o–n" triggers a salivation response.
“ | Identification prevents what general semantics seeks to promote: the additional cortical processing experienced as a delay. Korzybski called his remedy for identification "consciousness of abstracting." [3] The term "abstracting" is used ubiquitously in Science and Sanity. Korzybski's use of the term is somewhat unique and requires study to understand his meaning. He discussed the problem of identification in terms of "confusions of orders of abstractions" and "lack of consciousness of abstracting." [4] To be conscious of abstracting is to differentiate among the "levels" described above, levels II-IV being abstractions of level I (whatever level I "is"—all we really get are abstractions). The techniques Korzybski prescribed to help a person develop consciousness of abstracting he called "extensional devices. | ” |
You get the idea. It's written by true believers. Oh, but don't worry: It quotes some of the wonderful things based on it, like Neuro-linguistic programming and Scientology. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
It is about [12] where I reverted the WP:FRINGE claim that torture was involved in the November 2015 Paris attacks. See it busted at http://www.snopes.com/france-covered-up-bataclan-victims/ Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Since both include issues of "Military fancruft" I'm sharing these two discussions with this board.
Additional eyes on these areas would be welcome! K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
every pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain (on both sides), everyone who died at Pearl Harbor and at Auschwitz (...) probably [is] notable- huh, you will have to show a guideline for that. "They did something great" is not enough. The guideline I see is WP:LISTPEOPLE and it does not agree with you (even under the assumption that "everyone who died at Auschwitz" means "everyone who died fighting at Auschwitz", unless you are suggesting a list of 1+m people).
I'm suggesting that all of those people [every pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain (on both sides)] were mentioned in secondary sources for what they did" appears to be fringe theory, and would suggested include indiscriminate amounts of information into Wikipedia.
Magnetic resonance therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is total nonsense. Can someone delete it?
73.38.255.229 ( talk) 21:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
In depth article from The Washington Post, and from NIH - Magnetic resonance therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double blind placebo controlled trial.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday I PRODed Phantom cat—"also known as Alien big cats (ABCs)"—because it's an unencyclopedic list of speculation about non-existent animals (aka cryptids). But Dmol removed the PROD with the edit summary, "Removing PROD. Well referenced article", which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I didn't PROD it due to lack of references. The article is essentially a list of supposed phantom cat sightings, all purely speculation and therefore, IMO, not encyclopedic. Even if the article talked about phantom cats more generally, I most likely would have PRODed it for being WP:Undue weight as I think phantom cats can easily be covered under the main cryptid article or in the List of cryptids. (I haven't really looked at that list yet, but I have a feeling that a lot of the things on the list shouldn't have an entire article devoted to them, but almost every single one links to its main article.)
On a related note, I also PRODed Gippsland phantom cat last night for lack of notability since of its 4 sources, 2 were broken links and the other 2 didn't mention the subject. That PROD was removed by Kvng who provided three sources on the talkpage as evidence of notability: This article in the Herald Sun, which WP describes as a tabloid. The 2nd is on oddhistory.com and the 3rd is on australianbigcats.com. None are RS and only the 3rd source uses the phrase "Gippsland phantom cat".
Neither article has had any substantive edits for a long time, so I didn't think the PRODs would be controversial, but apparently they were, so I wanted to get input from other editors here before nominating them for AFD. Thoughts? —PermStrump (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I theorise that Ages Ago will do very well on the Edinburgh Festival Fringe?
Yeah, I just had to get the pun in. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex This is a theory claimed to be popular in Russian literature and even in Russian textbooks, but virtually unknown in the West. Google search in English shows either translations of the proponent or comments by Russian authors. I am not saying that Russian scientist are stupid, but such disconnection in today's globalization of science is a red flag to me. I am at a loss what to do with this article, since I see the subject has basically no independent scholarly discussion. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:PROFRINGE edits at Acupuncture. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone going to make an argument for why this was an appropriate removal of sourced content? If not, what are we talking about? The argument for keeping it is that WP:PSCI requires that we keep it. It is written dispassionately and it's well cited, so it doesn't seem like a justified removal to me. —PermStrump (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Inventor of a fad diet promising poorly-evidenced health benefits. The article is under constant assault (often from IPs); could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Related (at least) to the above postings on acupuncture, editors here should be aware of this contribution [13] on Jimbo's Talk page which alleges FT/N postings are being used to WP:CANVASS. More eyes welcome ;-) Alexbrn ( talk) 18:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Glad I wasn't the only one to notice that. I wasn't going to say anything, though. Gotta protect the cabal at all costs, don't ya know. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean we aren't out to get you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Transhumanism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - there is a debate on the talk page about whether fringe science is a suitable see also, whether there should be a hatnote for posthumanism and how to cover the Mormon Transhumanist Association. Fixuture has asked for more eyes and I concur, so mentioning it here - David Gerard ( talk) 22:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone else have a go counselling this new editor? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Came across this article when it was advertised in Youtube comments by the same individual who created it (scroll down for linked comment here). Appears to have been created and maintained by a single editor (the guy who made the Youtube comment) for sole purpose of promoting fringe viewpoint of a somebody named John Williamson, with 4 out of 6 references being primary sources; Williamson's own published work (including a preprint). As far as I can tell, Google search turns up nothing on this particular John Williamson, which makes this article especially inappropriate given that he is mentioned alongside Einstein, Dirac, and Feynman while simultaneously awarded the lion's share of the content. This should be deleted. Global Cerebral Ischemia ( talk) 23:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Needs a thorough going over in light of FRINGE. For one, Puthoff's fringe viewpoints are being given weight over mainstream scientific viewpoints. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Ya'll might want to be aware of this. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/08/08/88385924/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 ( talk) 21:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I hear if you put KT tape over those cup lesions you actually go back in time. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 00:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit war raging on cupping therapy. Notable sources are being systematically removed from a couple of IP addressed that have never edited Wikipedia before and seem to be here for a single purpose: maintaining a particular POV on this single topic. Help requested on how to solve this conflict, please. It is getting out of hand. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 00:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Article alerts which includes many fringe topics (and you should too). What other article alerts do editors here follow and recommend as FTN-relevant? - David Gerard ( talk) 11:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
A request for comment (RfC) is ongoing at Talk:Ajamu Baraka. The issue is whether the article should include a quotation from Politico magazine indicating that article subject "has a long history of fringe statements and beliefs." Comments by interested editors are welcome. Neutrality talk 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This article has always had issues with promotionalism. The section on Citizendium is particularly bad, though I've tried to fix it a bit. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I tried to help this guy, but he stopped responding. He's contested the prod, and after giving the page a thorough reading, I couldn't not nominate it at AfD. You can find the entry here. Just remember to use kid gloves with this guy, he's obviously in over his head here already, having troubles with copyright on images, talk page guidelines and more than a few other things we expect folks to know. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Before adding the cat to any page make sure the subject has been accused of promoting pseudoscience. For example, the body of the article must state something like "In 2010, Shermer said that Chopra is "the very definition of what we mean by pseudoscience".[114]" or "Hari has been criticized by scientists and others for promoting pseudoscience.[14][15][62]"
You can cut and paste this: [[Category:People accused of pseudoscience]]
Happy editing, QuackGuru ( talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The cat was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_12#Category:People_accused_of_pseudoscience. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Biocentric universe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robert Lanza ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Much nonsense about this idea which seems to be advertised heavily around the internet. 73.38.255.229 ( talk) 20:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I encountered 2 of the articles at AfD. For a bit of background Hakka people are sub group of Han Chinese people and so are Hoklo people. As such, these are technically under Chinese Americans. This specific categorisation appears to be a fringe classification of identity to me. I have never heard of this previously (almost nothing in scholarly sources) and lots of the statements in the article are a bunch of OR and SYNTH and plain unverified. I am posting it here so that other editors can have a look as well. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just put leukophobia up for deletion because, as far as I can tell, it's just something someone made up. There were a couple of RFDs which deleted a huge swathe of redirects, ostensibly because articles ought to be written instead. I'm wondering just how much of the -phobias we have have any kind of medical literature behind them. Mangoe ( talk) 17:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of this people already said in this thread, but I'm quoting myself from Talk:Trypophobia ("phobia" of clusters of little holes or bumps), because it basically applies to all of the made-up terms that fall under the DSM diagnosis of "specific phobia, other type"... According to the DSM-5, these are the subtypes of specific phobias:
For example, a clinician would write the diagnosis as "specific phobia, animal (dogs)" or "specific phobia, B-I-I (needles)" or "specific phobia, other (clusters of little holes)", not "other (trypophobia)" (or anything else involving the word "trypophobia", because no one else who read it would have any idea what you were talking about).
The fancy Greek/Latin terms are "pop" diagnoses like DoctorJoeE said and will probably never be in the DSM, because the trend, at least for now, is to move away from using obscure Latin and Greek words in favor of less ambiguous terms (e.g., Trichotillomania → hairpulling disorder). BUT that's not to say that believing someone could have a fear of lots of little holes in one place (or a fear of anything else for that matter) is a fringe concept, because people can have a specific phobia of literally anything and one of the criteria for a phobia diagnosis is that the fear is irrational, so they will always sound... irrational. (That doesn't mean the people self-diagnosing on the internet are right about themselves having it, but that's a completely separate issue.) So when these things come up, and they seem to come up a lot (see also nomophobia—fear of being separated from your smartphone/internet access), IMO, we should look at them as a WP:NEOLOGISMs and if the term doesn't meet the notability criteria for neologisms, then it shouldn't get its own article and in most cases would probably be undue weight to even mention in the body of Specific phobia, but I guess that would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. —PermStrump (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
A problem I've noticed with some -phobia articles is that they conflate a psychological disorder subject with a cultural phenomenon subject. Two that I took to AfD last year were Androphobia (an abnormal fear of men (a phobia) or a term that basically means misandry) and Hoplophobia (an abnormal fear of guns (a phobia) or a neologism coined by a gun rights activist for political purposes). Hoplophobia proved controversial (go figure) and was not deleted (*grumble*), but the AfD was, to me, illustrative of this challenge. With trypophobia, at least there's less confusion -- it was a cultural phenomenon, gaining attention via the Internet, at which point psychologists commented on it and said meh, revulsion, priming, and conditioning, and stuff. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Orion correlation theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this the right name for this page? I think both the word "correlation" and the word "theory" gives the idea more credence than it deserves.
jps ( talk) 20:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI for those interested in conspiracy theories. A brand new account appears and creates this article about a Hillary Clinton staffer who was shot to death in July. Seems only notable on the theory that he's Wikileaks' source for the leaked DNC emails (and presumably was killed for this). But of course there's no RS to support that claim. Mysterious new account that created the article and is guarding it also mysteriously knows how to propose a DYK, which of course is not going over well with the DYK people. Article already listed at AfD, which is attracting lots of activity for some reason. -- Krelnik ( talk) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 was recently created. As far as I can tell, it doesn't use sources about a subject "Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016", but rather a compilation of sources about individual conspiracy theories. My inclination is to send it to AfD, but it looks like a good amount of work has gone into it, and perhaps there's an argument for it to serve as a place to spin out sections of various other articles where these conspiracy theories might presently be living? (i.e. instead of having a pretty well sourced conspiracy theory in a campaign article). That approaches a textbook WP:COATRACK, and would still require sources about the broader topic, though. Posting here to get more opinions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles", but it does not say "If you have a bunch of things that seem related to you, come up with a topic name and put them all together". In other words, I don't think anybody's questioning whether a list such as this can include non-notable items. The problem is WP:SYNTH, and it's certainly not assuaged by CSC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific dissent (2nd nomination)
Since one of my creationist wikistalkers is needling me by reverting a redirect, I thought I'd let you all know about this situation.
jps ( talk) 02:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Found a BLP on Merrill Garnett that looked like this. Given the poor/non-existent sourcing on the guy, but the fact that the supplement he created, Poly-MVA, has some coverage I have boldly gutted this and moved the page to be a stub about the supplement, which is promoted as a treatment for cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases. The article may need watching and expansion would be good. I'll add more from the American Cancer Society source, but are there others? Alexbrn ( talk) 14:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Editor adding material already in the article about chicken bones (and the original text in the article uses a later source which suggests the earlier research was wrong) and skulls in Chile, mixed citation styles, references that don't link to any text, personal commentary, etc. The Matisoo-Smith material is already briefly mentioned in the article in the "Similarity of features and genetics" section but needs enhancement, but not repetition. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Ross is a deprogrammer known for his part in the Jason Scott case.
1) Am I correct in assuming "deprogramming", "brainwashing", "cults", etc in the context of this BLP are all WP:FRINGE?
2) If so, are we currently presenting enough of the larger context and fringe nature of the worldview that Ross works within?
I brought up these questions at Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross#Fringe_issues, where we agreed that a WP:FTN discussion would help.
Rick Alan Ross ( talk · contribs) is arguing to change his article to present him as an expert in "cults", and to de-emphasize his "deprogramming" work as much as possible. The current talk page is almost entirely about various such proposals.
3) Are there similar articles where these issues have been given more attention that we could use as guides? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
(EC) The problem is that RAR is notable for his deprogramming and the high profile cases involved in that. However given the passing of time, that is not substantially all of his work. As Wikipedia works off of reliable sources, and his other accomplishments just do not have the weight (in sources) of his former career, any article will understandably be slanted towards his former job rather than his latter. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Can someone address the FRINGE concerns please? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure that it is helpful for the ongoing discussion of this BLP to be fragmented into three different places (the article talkpage, the BLP noticeboard, and here). On the substance of the WP:FRINGE issue, I am not sure what the discussion here is seeking to achieve in terms of the article content. Some people may have one from of Mr. Ross's activities and "worldview" and some may have a different view, but the relevant question here is how this affects what we say in the BLP about him? Editors should also bear in mind that unlike the usual "fringe theories being pushed" situations discussed on this noticeboard, in this case we are talking about the BLP of an individual who probably would just as soon not have an article at all. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't really my field, psychology, but, from what little I am able to understand, RAR has been, in the past, one of the primary players in the area of brainwashing, which, again, from what little I understand of this, is more or less a specific variant of operant conditioning, much like Stockholm syndrome. I am not myself really sure that "brainwashing" qualifies as fringe in the field of psychology, and am not myself sufficiently knowledgable about it to say anything one way or another. Since then, the individual has, apparently, been more regularly discussed in the broad field of "cultish" NRMs, a field which includes brainwashing in its history but also deals with more broad social, psychological, and cultural issues as well. I'm not sure I would say Ernest Hemingway is most notable for The Sun Also Rises, although that argument would seem to me to bear many of the same features as the one about whether RAR is "most notable" for deprogramming. Maybe an RfC, involving all the relevant specialties around here, might be useful? John Carter ( talk) 20:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the great discussion. I'd like to leave this (how to handle the fringe issues properly in the article) in others' hands. I've still a number of BLP/NPOV concerns (the poor sources, the lack of depth in the recent sources, WP:NOTNEWS, how we balance the heavily- and well-documented deprogramming work and outcome with the lightly- and poorly-documented work since. However, this isn't the venue if we can get the fringe issues fairly settled. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_May_25#NUCCA. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology has recently been created. I'm a bit suspicious, because searching for "nyambo" and "salt" doesn't return results that confirm the claims made in the article. Could some other editors take a look? Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I found this article in a shocking state - for example, it claimed that "On January 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court elected to pass over OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto, and let stand the Court of Appeals ruling, effectively ending the lawsuit giving the farmers a partial victory." That's rubbish. Monsanto won the case (e.g. Reuters), the farmers merely got a legally binding promise for Monsanto not to do something they never did anyway. See Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser where the "accidental" contamination claim was withdrawn and tests subsequently showed that 95%-98% of the crop was infringing.
Incidentally, the Reuters piece summarises the dispute nicely:
Appealing to the fact of lower court allowing the case, as some kind of rebuttal to the actual outcome? Er, right. These folks are very obviously using the bogeyman of prosecution for accidental contamination, which never has happened and apparently never will, as a Trojan horse to try to strike down seed patents altogether, something which is openly acknowledged within the crunchy community (e.g. [3]).
I do not know if this group is notable at all, or if the article should simply be a redirect tot he court case. The court case article, and several related ones, also need a careful review because this kind of spin is rampant wherever Monsanto is discussed on Wikipedia, as I think we all know. Guy ( Help!) 09:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Slowly but surely, we're climbing that mountain.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral Institute
jps ( talk) 00:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Related to the above:
Anyone think these articles deserve a place in Wikipedia? I almost put them up for deletion, but hesitated. jps ( talk) 23:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the article Integral Institute, there is an article integral theory (Ken Wilber), a navbox {{ Integral thought}}. I would suggest that it is worth taking a close look at the articles linking to the article integral thought, via what links here. In at least some cases, integral theory is linked from "mainstream" articles, probably in violation of WP:FRINGE. In other cases, we have walled garden articles that probably should be merged. We don't need dozens of articles on so-called "integral theory". Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_24#Template:Integral_thought is now live.
jps ( talk) 14:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
List of integral thinkers and supporters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This could use some intelligent reworking.
jps ( talk) 14:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program.
jps ( talk) 18:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Visser.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext.
You know the drill.
jps ( talk) 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This list was taken from the above biography. Not all of these biographies are problematic, but many are.
jps ( talk) 13:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Blatant fringe problems. Apparently notable for claiming plants have consciousness. Problem is, only fringe sources have been cited for this claim. For example there is a section that says "This Report supports the possibility that plants may respond to human consciousness as contended by Cleve Backster", the reference for this is Bird Tompkins authors of the pseudoscientific book The Secret Life of Plants, this is hardly reliable. The article also uses psychic websites like this [4] which are entirely unreliable. A large chunk of this article may have to be deleted. Any suggestions? HealthyGirl ( talk) 15:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. The article cites an awful lot of personal biographic info to these sources. I'd like to know if they are valid. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@ PermStrump: I have an article about him. Send me an email if you want it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Permstrump: Email me, I'll forward it to you. I don't have your email address, so I can't send it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure if he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Problem with the article is that his alleged miracle of being cured is presented as factual. Only religious or fringe books endorsing miracles as genuine seem to mention this guy. Seems to be a serious lack of reliable sources. Any suggestions? HealthyGirl ( talk) 05:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Faith healing via magical action of Our Lady of Lourdes is just as much pseudoscience as is any other faith healing claim. WP:MAINSTREAM refers to experts, and experts in the natural, physical, and medical worlds are basically in agreement that literal miracles of the sort argued for by true believers in many faiths simply do not happen. To argue otherwise is necessarily in the purview of WP:FRINGE. Just because major religions accommodate beliefs in fringe theories, doesn't mean that they are insulated from the injunction to write a serious encyclopedia. jps ( talk) 14:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
A deletion review OK'd the article to be recreated without the poorly-sourced "paranormal phenomenon" content, but now Time_slip#Paranormal is back. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
While brainwave entrainment (BWE) does seem to be at least a legitimate concept within RS, the topic area is also rife with fringe claims and our article on it seems full of OR. Anybody familiar with this topic area? Alexbrn ( talk) 05:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Not actually a tautology, it seems. Replete with Truths stated in Wikipedia's voice. Formerly a merge and redirect to Alice Bailey, I'm unsure if anything is salvageable from the more recent content. CIreland ( talk) 11:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
There's been some disagreement over adding the term scientific consensus to part of the WP:FRINGE guideline. More eyes from folks here familiar with scientific consensus and fringe theories would be appreciated at the talk page. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 02:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Stumbled upon the article for Answers in Genesis a few weeks back and noticed giant sections that rely almost entirely -- or entirely -- on primary sources. I removed a big section, but it's been restored. I'd welcome additional eyeballs to gauge the situation according to best practices. Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 4#Big sections with only primary sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Gilbert.
jps ( talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Khader ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Homeopathy, laetrile, diets to cure cancer. Would appreciate some other eyes on this article as I don't have much time for Wikipedia editing this week. Kolbasz ( talk) 16:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
And listed at AfD, as notability is dubious. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Khader ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
doh. - Roxy the dog™ woof 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I cleaned up the opening couple sentences, but still needs work. - ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Criticism of this guys quackery being deleted from the article. User claims there was a "consensus" to remove criticisms from the article on the talk-page, but there wasn't, because these new sources were added in April. HealthyGirl ( talk) 14:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This is the only radionics proponent on Wikipedia that I cannot find any reliable references for, any ideas? HealthyGirl ( talk) 20:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@ HealthyGirl: You could AfD it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The Creation Museum article could use attention from people knowledgeable about creationism promotion. The article does not appear to be neutral, with the content geared towards promotional, almost reading like the Museum's web page. Additional eyes on this article would be appreciated. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Randall Fontes was deleted, it is now back at User:Valoem/Randall Fontes. HealthyGirl ( talk) 05:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Requested move -- inputs from interested editors would be appreciated. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This article on Monica Ten-Kate, whose cold readings are broadcast on the ABC-owned Freeform network, is at risk of growing credulous... Would appreciate if those who have watchlisted Tyler Henry and applied appropriate skepticism would also pay ongoing attention to some of Monica's recent edits and (possibly) PR-motivated additions. Thanks. Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Bishonen: Thanks! This is probably going to be a problem, can you place a protection on this article if this continues? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This new user has only been around for 6 days and has created at least 6 articles already. These four are definitely very fringeworthy and seem of dubious notability to me. At least one of his articles appears to have been created by taking an article from Romanian Wikipedia and running it through Google Translate. Would appreciate some extra eyes. -- Krelnik ( talk) 01:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
ThePlatypusofDoom go ahead nominate all articles, but don't notify me on my talk page. Enjoy yourselves. X-Men XtremE 12:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The editor writing these fringey stubby articles seems to be lacking some wp:clue, and ability in english. - Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what's going on here. The user has been perm banned but before they were banned started renaming some of the articles:
HealthyGirl ( talk) 05:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 8#Fork article could use some more opinions. It might help to read a thread I started about it at WT:PSYCH#Anti-Psychiatry a few months ago when I was first trying to make sense of it. —PermStrump (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I am right in thinking this is a crank marketing term that has had the occasional revival after a well-publicised press release, but is basically a WP:ONEEVENT thing centred around the press release, right? Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at WP:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms which is aiming to arrive at a cross-encyclopedia wording on the question of the scientific consensus on GMO food safety. Some of the considerations may cross into the realm of WP:FRINGE and so might be of interest to watchers of this noticeboard. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
At Talk:Anthroposophic medicine#Heart Hgilbert claims that "the heart is not a pump" is plausible and has a scientific basis because there is one book of one MD supporting it and one positive review of the book has been published with peer-review.
Here is the review. It should be noted that O'Leary is Furst's co-worker and they co-authored an article on the subject "the heart is not a pump", so support from O'Leary seems a walled garden and does not pass WP:FRIND. Do note that even according to the mentioned review, it is an axiom of medical science that the heart is a pump, so my claim is that "the heart is not a pump" is WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a problem with works that pass WP:RS with flying colors -- a book published by an academic publisher (Springer) and an article in a fully mainstream medical journal -- being termed "fringe". Fringe would seem to be that which is not accepted into the mainstream. Or, otherwise expressed, by WP standards, the fact that these publishers deem this work mainstream enough to publish makes them WP:RS, not fringe sources. This remains a minority view, of course, and I do not suggest that it should be presented as anything but that.
Since you apparently did not read it there, I copy below my response on the article talk page to the claim that Furst's work does not support Steiner's idea. @Shibbolethink probably had not looked at Furst's actual work when making this claim, as quite large sections of the book (including several whole chapters) are devoted to exactly this.
If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as 'originale investigationis'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing.
— WP:FLAT
see my comments at on the talk page about his credentials and some debunking of his credentials at [8]. I've reverted bogus claims twice tonight. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the correct venue. The article François Grin currently consists mainly (in terms of number of words) of discussion of a report advocating the use of Esperanto, a report variously called "the Grin report" or "Grin's report". In 2013 an article at Grin Report was deleted per the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grin Report. It was re-created at the same title a few weeks later and then speedily deleted. In 2014 essentially the same article was created at Grin's Report; it was also speedily deleted.
Last month (May 2016) User:Alekso92 added the thrice-deleted content to the biographical article with this edit. Apparently the content exists on Wikia.
The AfD did not contend that the theory is fringe per se, but was unable to find independent sources to establish notability. User:I JethroBT did, however, find two brief mentions of the report in presumed reliable sources. Also, User:DGG suggested prior to the deletion discussion that "Grin Report" be merged to "François Grin", which in effect Alekso92's edit has accomplished.
Currently "François Grin" cites the Grin report itself, as well as a petition and an article about Esperanto, but does not cite any third-party sources describing the report.
My own opinion is that brief mention of the report may be due in the article about its author, but attempts to smuggle back in the same deleted content without establishing its notability or its acceptability (i.e. non-fringe status) among language planning authorities or scholars is inappropriate. Cnilep ( talk) 01:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Over at loch ness monster, we've got a user repeatedly edit-warring to present cryptozoology in a positive light. The same user has made various anti-academic statements, including anti-global warming comments elsewhere, so this is hardly a surprise. Still, the article needs more eyes. Cryptozoology creep has long been a problem on Wikipedia and we really need more of a stern effort to relegate it to specific sections of articles per WP:UNDUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This AfD may be of interest to folks who lurk here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britt Marie Hermes. Montanabw (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Krelnik: Agreed. Although not quite BITEing, it's close. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to a comment on the talk page from an editor who couldn't adds category I added it for him. It was "Fictional languages" and almost immediately removed as being a PoV category. A bit odd as that seems the mainstream PoV so seems reasonable. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else."But you wouldn't really be able to present both sides with a category, so I'm not sure. —PermStrump (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
On a related note, the sourcing in this article is quite dubious. —PermStrump (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've been trying to remove the worst sources and unsourced items from List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia and List of reportedly haunted locations in Canada as well as rewording the remaining entries to a NPOV. A SPA completely reverted me on the first and some IPs have re-added some unsourced and poorly sourced items to the second. Edward321 ( talk) 00:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI: There is a spirited discussion going on in an RFC on the Talk page regarding this intelligent design guy - should the fact that ID is regarded as pseudoscience be mentioned in the lede of this BLP? -- Krelnik ( talk) 15:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted a fringe editor here once, could someone else explain to him about reliable sources and original research so they don't think it's just me? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Future_life_progression Jytdog ( talk) 12:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI to those who might know more about this guy, Jack Schwarz. He does not seem notable, but the list of books in the article is impressive looking. I detect fringe and promo issues all over. Delta13C ( talk) 19:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
More eyes will be appreciated: recent editing has been problematic. K.e.coffman ( talk) 14:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This may be slightly off-topic for this forum, but I've seen the editors who post here to be experienced with the topics of sourcing, neutrality, extraordinary claims, and level of detail in the articles, as well as general Wikipedia policies.
It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.
I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No action required, but just thought readers here would be interested in the dismissal of a lawsuit in France over an astrologer's BLP, covered on the Wikimedia blog here. Also, that same BLP has just been translated to English (here - Élizabeth Teissier) thanks to Adam Cuerden. -- Krelnik ( talk) 14:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This AFD is related to the Integral theory (Ken Wilber) articles that have come up on this noticeboard recently. jps nominated EnlightenNext for deletion a few weeks ago and it completely flew under the radar, so SwisterTwister just renominated it and I figured I'd mention it here, so the same thing doesn't happen again. —PermStrump (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
is an Australian political party pushing altmed and various conspiracy theories, edited here it seems by a party rep. Some edits pointing-out the bollocksy nature of their beliefs are being reverted; probably could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This page needs more watchlisters. It may also benefit from semi-protection, as it's gotten a fair bit of rather bad back-and-forth lately by IPs - you know the sort, one changes it to say homeopathy is not a pseudoscience, and to delete some ccriticism, the next comes along, and, instead of reverting to keep the cites, changes it to remove the POV-pushing, but now it's uncited, etc. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
(Crosspost from
WP:ANI)
Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_2:_.C3.89lizabeth_Teissier
Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier
We can't replace a simple, well-cited fact with promotion of astrology. DYK seems to have gone mad. This is not what I expected (or was ready) to see first thing in the morning after a bout of insomnia and jackhammers. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Some editors here may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Back to square one, about what the best practice is, if an editor removes WP:UNSOURCED material from an article in the belief (whether right or wrong) that the material cannot be verified in a reliable source (aka " WP:CHALLENGEs the material"). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's something different for you. In a HuffPo piece Kristofferson is reported to have chronic lyme disease [9]. That piece is commented on by David Gorski here. On the Talk page there is some disagreement about how all this should be reported here. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Came across this, another of the endless variants of somatic nonsense topics we seem to have. I trimmed some nasty POV and went looking for neutral sources to try and expand it but have drawn something of a blank. Anybody know more? Alexbrn ( talk) 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There has been a lot of activity at the article recently, and I have just done a mini re-write/clean-up which could probably benefit from a check by fringe-savvy editors. There is also an RfC running for this article which may be of interest. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Trey Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone delete this article? Looks to be pure WP:VANITY as well as a WP:FRINGEBLP.
73.38.255.229 ( talk) 05:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this a notable concept? I tried looking it up and can't figure out if the sources that use those two words in consecutive order are talking about the same concept as this article since the article is essentially a list in prose form of all of the times the phrase has appeared in writing (they missed at least one from the 1700s).
Same question about Neurotheology and the neurotheologist Andrew B. Newberg mentioned in the rational mysticism article. —PermStrump (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
B. Alan Wallace ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has been edit-warring to add the (obviously unsourced) claim that "vacuum state of consciousness" is a "concept originating in Buddhism". A source designates "vacuum state of consciousness" as quantum woo pseudobabble. (Unless we are in a time-travel paradox, the phrase can't come from ancient India.)
Undeterred by requests to read WP:NOR, the editor is also demanding that the perfectly acceptable secondary source be expunged and replaced by primary sources because the secondary source is "wrong". In any case I've made little headway on the talk page, so a third opinion would be appreciated. Manul ~ talk 20:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Needs more advanced opinions. Obviously fails WP:BIO, and since the guy is a WP:FRINGE careerist, I thought you all should be aware. Delta13C ( talk) 17:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
An IP just made a few edits that look like POV pushing to me, I'm at 2RR, could use a hand. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 01:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
What specifically did you need help with? I scanned the talk page and didn't find anything. Note that I feel strongly about bad science; when scientists use misleading or fraudulent language, the lies are like a rat infestation -- there are far more present than you will ever see. Roches ( talk) 18:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
BinaryPhoton ( talk · contribs) (who is suspiciosly promoting Randy Wayne in various places in wikipedia) created a section "scientific dissident" in article dissident. I doubt this section belongs here. " scientific dissident" is a fringe term. google gives less than 500 hits. I suspect it is nothing but a fashionable moniker adopted by fringe scientists. Please comment in talk:Dissident - üser:Altenmann >t 14:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
And now, just today, a new article was created: scientific dissent. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 03:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Scientific dissent ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A pseudoscientific essay in support of "scientific dissent" was penned here in Wikipedia. I deleted it. 73.38.255.229 ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Scientific dissent has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
73.38.255.229 (
talk) 19:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Technological singularity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - in its present state is transhumanist advocacy with a ton of blog-quality sources, all trying to make out that this purely hypothetical science fiction trope is a real-life thing that is immiment. Someone tried noting in the intro its science-fictional nature and was reverted; I did a rewrite of the intro so it sounds less like a blog article and essayed upon the long task of fixing the sourcing ... I removed a nonexistent unverifiable source, a blog, a seminar talk video equivalent to a self-sourced blog post, three redundant cites to the same IJ Good piece, and toned down some WP:PEACOCK terms ... and that was editing two paragraphs. More eyes would be most welcomed on the task of bringing this article up to Wikipedia scratch. Or saying that my approach is wrong and terrible if you think that. Discussion at Talk:Technological_singularity#SciFi - David Gerard ( talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Gujarat Ayurved University ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article requires cleanup. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Got an IP continually adding fringe stuff about how this diet combats cancer. Could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This article could use some more eyes and some assistance. It needs a complete overhaul. I just started working on it and haven't been reverted yet, but it's the middle of the night in the US and based on the edit history, there seem to be some WP:OWN issues and all of the content additions for the past few years probably violate WP:FRINGE. Here's a clearly worded, reliable source on the topic to get your bearings. —PermStrump (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Quoting the first paragraph will likely be enough to demonstrate the problem.
“ | General semantics discourages the use of the copula "is" and as such it would be inconsistent to define it intensionally; however, general semantics allows for describing what it does. Thus, it identifies factors of sanity in the scientific breakthroughs achieved in aristotelian systems. Like geometry merging with analysis, analysis merges with general semantics. [1] Polish-American independent scholar Alfred Korzybski [2] (1879–1950) discussed general semantics for the first time in Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, which he published in 1933. | ” |
It's written entirely in-universe for what is an extremely fringe idea of language. Here's some other wonderful quotes:
By making it a 'mental' habit to find and keep one's bearings among the ordered stages, general semantics training seeks to sharpen internal orientation much as a GPS device may sharpen external orientation. Once trained, general semanticists affirm, a person will act, respond, and make decisions more appropriate to any given set of happenings. Although producing saliva constitutes an appropriate response when lemon juice drips onto the tongue, a person has inappropriately identified when an imagined lemon or the word "l–e–m–o–n" triggers a salivation response.
“ | Identification prevents what general semantics seeks to promote: the additional cortical processing experienced as a delay. Korzybski called his remedy for identification "consciousness of abstracting." [3] The term "abstracting" is used ubiquitously in Science and Sanity. Korzybski's use of the term is somewhat unique and requires study to understand his meaning. He discussed the problem of identification in terms of "confusions of orders of abstractions" and "lack of consciousness of abstracting." [4] To be conscious of abstracting is to differentiate among the "levels" described above, levels II-IV being abstractions of level I (whatever level I "is"—all we really get are abstractions). The techniques Korzybski prescribed to help a person develop consciousness of abstracting he called "extensional devices. | ” |
You get the idea. It's written by true believers. Oh, but don't worry: It quotes some of the wonderful things based on it, like Neuro-linguistic programming and Scientology. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
It is about [12] where I reverted the WP:FRINGE claim that torture was involved in the November 2015 Paris attacks. See it busted at http://www.snopes.com/france-covered-up-bataclan-victims/ Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Since both include issues of "Military fancruft" I'm sharing these two discussions with this board.
Additional eyes on these areas would be welcome! K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
every pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain (on both sides), everyone who died at Pearl Harbor and at Auschwitz (...) probably [is] notable- huh, you will have to show a guideline for that. "They did something great" is not enough. The guideline I see is WP:LISTPEOPLE and it does not agree with you (even under the assumption that "everyone who died at Auschwitz" means "everyone who died fighting at Auschwitz", unless you are suggesting a list of 1+m people).
I'm suggesting that all of those people [every pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain (on both sides)] were mentioned in secondary sources for what they did" appears to be fringe theory, and would suggested include indiscriminate amounts of information into Wikipedia.
Magnetic resonance therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is total nonsense. Can someone delete it?
73.38.255.229 ( talk) 21:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
In depth article from The Washington Post, and from NIH - Magnetic resonance therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double blind placebo controlled trial.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday I PRODed Phantom cat—"also known as Alien big cats (ABCs)"—because it's an unencyclopedic list of speculation about non-existent animals (aka cryptids). But Dmol removed the PROD with the edit summary, "Removing PROD. Well referenced article", which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I didn't PROD it due to lack of references. The article is essentially a list of supposed phantom cat sightings, all purely speculation and therefore, IMO, not encyclopedic. Even if the article talked about phantom cats more generally, I most likely would have PRODed it for being WP:Undue weight as I think phantom cats can easily be covered under the main cryptid article or in the List of cryptids. (I haven't really looked at that list yet, but I have a feeling that a lot of the things on the list shouldn't have an entire article devoted to them, but almost every single one links to its main article.)
On a related note, I also PRODed Gippsland phantom cat last night for lack of notability since of its 4 sources, 2 were broken links and the other 2 didn't mention the subject. That PROD was removed by Kvng who provided three sources on the talkpage as evidence of notability: This article in the Herald Sun, which WP describes as a tabloid. The 2nd is on oddhistory.com and the 3rd is on australianbigcats.com. None are RS and only the 3rd source uses the phrase "Gippsland phantom cat".
Neither article has had any substantive edits for a long time, so I didn't think the PRODs would be controversial, but apparently they were, so I wanted to get input from other editors here before nominating them for AFD. Thoughts? —PermStrump (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I theorise that Ages Ago will do very well on the Edinburgh Festival Fringe?
Yeah, I just had to get the pun in. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex This is a theory claimed to be popular in Russian literature and even in Russian textbooks, but virtually unknown in the West. Google search in English shows either translations of the proponent or comments by Russian authors. I am not saying that Russian scientist are stupid, but such disconnection in today's globalization of science is a red flag to me. I am at a loss what to do with this article, since I see the subject has basically no independent scholarly discussion. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:PROFRINGE edits at Acupuncture. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone going to make an argument for why this was an appropriate removal of sourced content? If not, what are we talking about? The argument for keeping it is that WP:PSCI requires that we keep it. It is written dispassionately and it's well cited, so it doesn't seem like a justified removal to me. —PermStrump (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Inventor of a fad diet promising poorly-evidenced health benefits. The article is under constant assault (often from IPs); could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Related (at least) to the above postings on acupuncture, editors here should be aware of this contribution [13] on Jimbo's Talk page which alleges FT/N postings are being used to WP:CANVASS. More eyes welcome ;-) Alexbrn ( talk) 18:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Glad I wasn't the only one to notice that. I wasn't going to say anything, though. Gotta protect the cabal at all costs, don't ya know. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean we aren't out to get you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Transhumanism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - there is a debate on the talk page about whether fringe science is a suitable see also, whether there should be a hatnote for posthumanism and how to cover the Mormon Transhumanist Association. Fixuture has asked for more eyes and I concur, so mentioning it here - David Gerard ( talk) 22:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone else have a go counselling this new editor? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Came across this article when it was advertised in Youtube comments by the same individual who created it (scroll down for linked comment here). Appears to have been created and maintained by a single editor (the guy who made the Youtube comment) for sole purpose of promoting fringe viewpoint of a somebody named John Williamson, with 4 out of 6 references being primary sources; Williamson's own published work (including a preprint). As far as I can tell, Google search turns up nothing on this particular John Williamson, which makes this article especially inappropriate given that he is mentioned alongside Einstein, Dirac, and Feynman while simultaneously awarded the lion's share of the content. This should be deleted. Global Cerebral Ischemia ( talk) 23:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Needs a thorough going over in light of FRINGE. For one, Puthoff's fringe viewpoints are being given weight over mainstream scientific viewpoints. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Ya'll might want to be aware of this. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/08/08/88385924/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 ( talk) 21:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I hear if you put KT tape over those cup lesions you actually go back in time. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 00:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit war raging on cupping therapy. Notable sources are being systematically removed from a couple of IP addressed that have never edited Wikipedia before and seem to be here for a single purpose: maintaining a particular POV on this single topic. Help requested on how to solve this conflict, please. It is getting out of hand. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 00:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Article alerts which includes many fringe topics (and you should too). What other article alerts do editors here follow and recommend as FTN-relevant? - David Gerard ( talk) 11:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
A request for comment (RfC) is ongoing at Talk:Ajamu Baraka. The issue is whether the article should include a quotation from Politico magazine indicating that article subject "has a long history of fringe statements and beliefs." Comments by interested editors are welcome. Neutrality talk 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This article has always had issues with promotionalism. The section on Citizendium is particularly bad, though I've tried to fix it a bit. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 16:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I tried to help this guy, but he stopped responding. He's contested the prod, and after giving the page a thorough reading, I couldn't not nominate it at AfD. You can find the entry here. Just remember to use kid gloves with this guy, he's obviously in over his head here already, having troubles with copyright on images, talk page guidelines and more than a few other things we expect folks to know. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Before adding the cat to any page make sure the subject has been accused of promoting pseudoscience. For example, the body of the article must state something like "In 2010, Shermer said that Chopra is "the very definition of what we mean by pseudoscience".[114]" or "Hari has been criticized by scientists and others for promoting pseudoscience.[14][15][62]"
You can cut and paste this: [[Category:People accused of pseudoscience]]
Happy editing, QuackGuru ( talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The cat was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_12#Category:People_accused_of_pseudoscience. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Biocentric universe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robert Lanza ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Much nonsense about this idea which seems to be advertised heavily around the internet. 73.38.255.229 ( talk) 20:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I encountered 2 of the articles at AfD. For a bit of background Hakka people are sub group of Han Chinese people and so are Hoklo people. As such, these are technically under Chinese Americans. This specific categorisation appears to be a fringe classification of identity to me. I have never heard of this previously (almost nothing in scholarly sources) and lots of the statements in the article are a bunch of OR and SYNTH and plain unverified. I am posting it here so that other editors can have a look as well. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just put leukophobia up for deletion because, as far as I can tell, it's just something someone made up. There were a couple of RFDs which deleted a huge swathe of redirects, ostensibly because articles ought to be written instead. I'm wondering just how much of the -phobias we have have any kind of medical literature behind them. Mangoe ( talk) 17:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of this people already said in this thread, but I'm quoting myself from Talk:Trypophobia ("phobia" of clusters of little holes or bumps), because it basically applies to all of the made-up terms that fall under the DSM diagnosis of "specific phobia, other type"... According to the DSM-5, these are the subtypes of specific phobias:
For example, a clinician would write the diagnosis as "specific phobia, animal (dogs)" or "specific phobia, B-I-I (needles)" or "specific phobia, other (clusters of little holes)", not "other (trypophobia)" (or anything else involving the word "trypophobia", because no one else who read it would have any idea what you were talking about).
The fancy Greek/Latin terms are "pop" diagnoses like DoctorJoeE said and will probably never be in the DSM, because the trend, at least for now, is to move away from using obscure Latin and Greek words in favor of less ambiguous terms (e.g., Trichotillomania → hairpulling disorder). BUT that's not to say that believing someone could have a fear of lots of little holes in one place (or a fear of anything else for that matter) is a fringe concept, because people can have a specific phobia of literally anything and one of the criteria for a phobia diagnosis is that the fear is irrational, so they will always sound... irrational. (That doesn't mean the people self-diagnosing on the internet are right about themselves having it, but that's a completely separate issue.) So when these things come up, and they seem to come up a lot (see also nomophobia—fear of being separated from your smartphone/internet access), IMO, we should look at them as a WP:NEOLOGISMs and if the term doesn't meet the notability criteria for neologisms, then it shouldn't get its own article and in most cases would probably be undue weight to even mention in the body of Specific phobia, but I guess that would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. —PermStrump (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
A problem I've noticed with some -phobia articles is that they conflate a psychological disorder subject with a cultural phenomenon subject. Two that I took to AfD last year were Androphobia (an abnormal fear of men (a phobia) or a term that basically means misandry) and Hoplophobia (an abnormal fear of guns (a phobia) or a neologism coined by a gun rights activist for political purposes). Hoplophobia proved controversial (go figure) and was not deleted (*grumble*), but the AfD was, to me, illustrative of this challenge. With trypophobia, at least there's less confusion -- it was a cultural phenomenon, gaining attention via the Internet, at which point psychologists commented on it and said meh, revulsion, priming, and conditioning, and stuff. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Orion correlation theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this the right name for this page? I think both the word "correlation" and the word "theory" gives the idea more credence than it deserves.
jps ( talk) 20:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI for those interested in conspiracy theories. A brand new account appears and creates this article about a Hillary Clinton staffer who was shot to death in July. Seems only notable on the theory that he's Wikileaks' source for the leaked DNC emails (and presumably was killed for this). But of course there's no RS to support that claim. Mysterious new account that created the article and is guarding it also mysteriously knows how to propose a DYK, which of course is not going over well with the DYK people. Article already listed at AfD, which is attracting lots of activity for some reason. -- Krelnik ( talk) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 was recently created. As far as I can tell, it doesn't use sources about a subject "Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016", but rather a compilation of sources about individual conspiracy theories. My inclination is to send it to AfD, but it looks like a good amount of work has gone into it, and perhaps there's an argument for it to serve as a place to spin out sections of various other articles where these conspiracy theories might presently be living? (i.e. instead of having a pretty well sourced conspiracy theory in a campaign article). That approaches a textbook WP:COATRACK, and would still require sources about the broader topic, though. Posting here to get more opinions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles", but it does not say "If you have a bunch of things that seem related to you, come up with a topic name and put them all together". In other words, I don't think anybody's questioning whether a list such as this can include non-notable items. The problem is WP:SYNTH, and it's certainly not assuaged by CSC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific dissent (2nd nomination)
Since one of my creationist wikistalkers is needling me by reverting a redirect, I thought I'd let you all know about this situation.
jps ( talk) 02:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Found a BLP on Merrill Garnett that looked like this. Given the poor/non-existent sourcing on the guy, but the fact that the supplement he created, Poly-MVA, has some coverage I have boldly gutted this and moved the page to be a stub about the supplement, which is promoted as a treatment for cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases. The article may need watching and expansion would be good. I'll add more from the American Cancer Society source, but are there others? Alexbrn ( talk) 14:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Editor adding material already in the article about chicken bones (and the original text in the article uses a later source which suggests the earlier research was wrong) and skulls in Chile, mixed citation styles, references that don't link to any text, personal commentary, etc. The Matisoo-Smith material is already briefly mentioned in the article in the "Similarity of features and genetics" section but needs enhancement, but not repetition. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)