This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Donald Levine, an Orientalist scholar, asserts that the ruling Amhara in Ethiopia were enslaved by the Afar. This is mentioned almost in passing, with no explanation as to which historical text this is based on [1]. He may have been alluding to marauding by the medieval Adal Sultanate (of which the Afar were a key part), but this too is unclear [2]. As such, it appears to be a tiny fringe claim since no other specialist in the field suggests this. Please advise. Soupforone ( talk) 17:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you The_Four_Deuces, that seems reasonable. Soupforone ( talk) 06:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Just ran into this. I didn't know anything about him until today. Some Mormon history stuff, 9/11, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
hi there. my name is noah kulwin, and i'm the technology editor at vice news. i'm working on a story comparing facebook and wikipedia, and how wikipedia has more successfully kept fake news and misinformation from entering the mainstream. i've already spoken with one wikipedia editor, and have lined up interviews with senior staff at wikipedia/the wikimedia foundation. i'm interested in learning more about wikipedia editors who directly engage with fringe theories (particularly those with a political bent), and i'm curious about your experiences.
my email is listed in the bio of my twitter account (twitter.com/nkulw), and i look forward to hearing more from anyone interested.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.103.131 ( talk • contribs)
Written by a WP:SPA, I just pruned a lot of "more research needed" style stuff from a predatory journal. I don't know if this is woo or not. Guy ( Help!) 15:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a new biography of someone connected with the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. It could use looking over by the fringe-sensitive. Mangoe ( talk) 15:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I PROD'd this but it got deprodded by an IP who advised me to try it. I'm finding good sourcing hard to come by - anybody know more? Alexbrn ( talk) 14:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
An article about a west coast "Alternative Medicine" university that has been the scene of some edit warring. I have protected the page for a week but some extra eyes might be helpful. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Anyone wish to try to fix this BLP? I don't think the article creator undestood what an ABD is. you hardly receive it. His website is here, a site debunking his lost civilization 'find' here. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Am I wrong in my argument that an EL recently added is inappropriate? It may not be the only one but it's the newest. I've now also raised it at the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have decided to collate all these issues under one setting as they are related. For those unaware, Immanuel Velikovsky was synonymous with pseudoscience back in the 1970s as the equivalent to the 2012 doomsdayers or the ancient alien people of today. Wikipedia was early on infected with a number of Velikovskians who have been subsequently sidelined, for the most part, but a lot of cruft remains. I periodically try to clean it out.
jps ( talk) 14:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Third time we've had a deletion discussion on this.
Comment please.
jps ( talk) 20:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
What the hell, let's do talk about deleting this one too.
jps ( talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
C. Leroy Ellenberger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is an interesting case and I think people here may be able to help. C. Leroy Ellenberger was an important debunker of Velikovsky (supporter turned skeptic) who, somewhat like ex-Scientologists being the most hated by Scientology, has inspired the irate furor of Velikovskians. He also has an account here and has been very helpful in providing content for some of the articles we have that discuss Velikovsky, but he has edited his own biography (and I will refrain from linking to it here out of respect for WP:OUTING).
The thing is, his biography is more of an object lesson in the larger tale of Velikovsky pseudoscience than it is an encyclopedic work. Note that many of the sources in our article on him do not rise to the WP:RS level that we typically require. I don't really know what to do about this.
So just thought I'd post about this here and let you all decide what you think.
jps ( talk) 14:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Gunnar Heinsohn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does this neo-Velikovskian pass WP:PROF? I guess so, but it's hard for me to say. In any case, it is very important that we identify his pseudohistory ideas as such, and that is not currently done. Not to mention that the biography looks like a coatrack. See especially: Gunnar Heinsohn#Revision of ancient chronology.
jps ( talk) 14:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm apparently very unappreciated for trying to summarize Gorski.
Maybe you can help clean up my "OR/SYNTH".
jps ( talk) 17:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Spiritual quotient needs attention, and is currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual quotient. – Joe ( talk) 12:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Have any of you taken a look at 1001 Inventions? It looks like it's written as a promotional piece—award-winning this, puffery-puffery-that. Everything involving 1001 Inventions is portrayed in the most positive light, whereas criticism is downplayed and simplified. There's some serious fringe history going on here, at the very least. See this piece from the New York Times about the exhibit, for example: [8]. In the past, we had a serious problem with a small group of editors promoting similarly dubious notions all over the site (i.e., (Islamic figure) was the father of (x), etc.), despite far earlier examples of the technology in use and so on. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, can I get some input regarding this edit, please? I've already diked out the last paragraph on the grounds that "The Mammoth Book of Unexplained Phenomena" seems to be the antithesis of a reliable source. The remaining text expands on tabloid references that were already mentioned, but not detailed.
I have a bit of a sour taste in my mouth regarding this edit since the rest of the article details how she looked up dead relatives of people she was to come in contact with, and the new section is not contextualised. Vashti ( talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I just have tried to fix this article. Criticisms of Cayce have repeatedly been deleted from the article.
A lot of the rest of the article is very favorable to Cayce and is sourced to one of his defenders biographies (Thomas Sugrue, 2003). Any idea what can be done here? 82.132.185.11 ( talk) 23:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I have started a discussion regarding the first sentence of the above linked-to article at Talk:Intelligent design#RfC on phrasing of lede paragraph. The discussion is at this point about possibly framing an RfC about the issue being raised, and I think any input from any parties who frequent this noticeboard would probably be welcome. John Carter ( talk) 01:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't apply to a specific article but I know the GMO "debate" is a big fringe topic. So I was in the grocery store the other day and I saw a bottle of water that said "non-GMO". It was "premium" alkaline water, "blk" (getblk.com). Just wanted everyone else waiting for their Monsanto money to know that yes, now we've got non-GMO water. Roches ( talk) 12:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This reads to me as a bunch of WP:SYN promoting bollocks, but is it notable bollocks? I can't find much in the way of reality-based commentary on it. Guy ( Help!) 11:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a paranormal theory that seeks to explain memory lapse in terms of parallel universes. Its page was deleted in September, with a redirect to a section in Confabulation. However, that article is about a psychiatric condition, so that isn't appropriate. Misremembering names, quotations, or historical events is not a psychiatric condition, and isn't in itself notable. What makes this topic notable (if it is) is that some people refuse to accept their faulty memories are just that: normal, fallible memories. Currently, the section is being build up with more information about this non-existent phenomenon. I tend to think the best response would be to remove the section, but is there a better option?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
This has always been a problem but it's become a bit worse lately.
There are several types of fringe archaeology that editors try to insert in biblical articles. One is the woo-woo variety as exemplified by people such as Ron Wyatt, Bob Cornuke, etc. At the other extreme is probably David Rohl. In the middle are the Creationists, some of whom have also managed to publish in non-Creationists journals, such as Bryant Wood, Douglas Petrovich (see Talk:The Exodus#Avaris, and David Palmer Livingston [10]. A new editor, Korvex ( talk · contribs) is pushing (going so far as saying what "will" be done) such sources in articles such as Ai (Canaan) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Et-Tell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Exodus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(see the articles and their talk pages) and at Talk:Israel. I'm not arguing that we should never use such fringe sources, as at times NPOV requires their use, but eyes are needed. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Willy Munyeta is an article about a self-proclaimed prophet that needs cleaning up. Deletion might be needed, but I'm not certain that it is. Article needs major fixes, help would be appreciated. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
...which was a cross, right? Probably not, if you read this article. Starting in the 1800s, maybe a bit earlier, we start to see various people trying to second-guess Christian tradition and re-interpret scripture. The truth is that these are all extremely minority positions at best. I'm inclined to go at the thing with a chainsaw or even ask for deletion outright, but perhaps others would like to put their oars in. Mangoe ( talk) 21:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see what's wrong with this page to warrant deletion. In every and all research areas scholars go to amazing depths of nitpicking on progressively narrow subjects. Of course, this subject is of natural interest to people who like to argue how many angels can fit the tip of a needle. But a cursory look tells me that the article cites people far from being kranks and many of them have wikipedia articles. Of course, as with any wikipedia articles, this one may be asking for a cleanup, but not for a major panic. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, why jump right here? I see no discussion in article talk page. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
On further reflection I'm going to merge this into crucifixion. Everything here is really about what crucifixion is in general. Mangoe ( talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
An anonymous IP editor is of the opinion that, in the article Jacob Barnett, we are not permitted to assert that it is false that Barnett disproved Einstein's theory of relativity, the Big Bang, and is in line for the Nobel Prize, despite claims made on his behalf. Unfortunately, there are very few appropriately skeptical secondary sources that make this a challenge for WP:V, but lots of sources that make false statements. More editors knowledgeable about fringe theories and the sciences, and how to deal with those on an encyclopedia, would be appreciated. See Talk:Jacob Barnett#Verifying a negative. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
These claims are false.I created that list by copying and pasting from that section (and in this case adding “not” to each item). — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 00:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There has also been a good deal of disagreement over the overall tone, structure, and focus of that article. Some editors feel it’s too deep in the science weeds, not focusing enough on the person. Some feel it can’t be neutral if it’s trying to be too much of an attack piece. Some feel it can’t be neutral if it hints at the existence of a novel theory. Experienced BLP editors would be welcome. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 04:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think the whole article is problematic. If he gets a Nobel prize, if he disproves Einstein, that will be notable, but assertions for or against are not very important.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 13:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have fluency in any of the other languages, but I am perplexed as to the existence of those articles. I wonder if this article gets deleted whether these articles turn out to be just transwiki translations of previous versions. In any case, the problem is, as I see it, that the stub article is WP:TOOSOON. jps ( talk) 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an odd intersection of topics, but since this has to do with removing certain scientific information on an insect because it can be used to make jokes about a political figure, this seemed like the best fitting board.
Neopalpa donaldtrumpi is an insect named after Donald Trump's hair. In entomology, we use various traits to describe species and how they are identified, especially compared to closely related species. In insects, one of the most common features we use are genital differences (structure size, hooks, barbs, etc.). [14] Interestingly (or unfortunately), this species happens to be described as having smaller male genital structures than the other species in its genus, or fewer hairs in females in the species key, which is where the important characteristics are listed (i.e., WP:WEIGHT). Not long after this story hit the news, people started making jokes, etc. out of N. donaldtrumpi for smaller male genitals. That's come full circle now and we've had editors calling to remove references to genital size in part due to this and associations with previous "small hands" jokes about Trump, while also saying that genital size is not important for inclusion. In terms of entomology to say medicine, that's like saying taking a blood pressure reading isn't important for assessing heart health.
You can see current discussion on the talk page. This part of the content is currently included, but since this only hit the news last week, I'd prefer to have more eyes on the article from science-minded folks as there's likely to be more controversy and calls to exclude some of the primary identifying features of the species according to the source. That could also go for people trying to lay into the genital size topic in the article too much as well where you'd run into BLP issues. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I am amazed how tireless Kingofaces43 is in spreading false accusations. Which other forums smearing my name did I miss? How come a self-proclaimed entomologist contributed nothing to the article but a pool of venom in its talk page? Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
For aficionados: Baracktrema obamai—a species of blood fluke. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
We could use some more viewpoints and research on how prominently "pseudoscience" is mentioned in the article, including the lede. The sourcing looks rather poor at this point for what's currently there. Discussion at Talk:Mehmet_Oz#Pseudoscience promoter, or alleged? -- Ronz ( talk) 19:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This could probably also go at WP:RSN, but I'll just drop it here.
Eric Lerner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is an article about a Big Bang denier from the 1990s.
Dicklyon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a longtime editor of the page who thinks that Lerner is a scientist. I think that is a little strange characterization considering he doesn't seem to be working within the scientific field. Right now he is mostly preoccupied with his dense plasma focus company which has been struggling along for 20 years failing to get funding. While he does, from time to time, publish in fringe journals about his peculiar contrarianism, I would not say this rises to the level of "scientist". Dicklyon is under the impression that the man has a PhD, which is also not the case (not that one cannot be a scientist without a PhD, but I am finding it difficult to engage with this person).
The proposed sources for the claim that Lerner is a scientist that Dicklyon has provided have been: (1) an article by Lerner himself, (2) a book about postmodern deep ecology invoking integral theory, and (3) a creationist book about Adam and Eve.
This kind of fringe POV-pushing, whether intentional or not, is often occurring at this page, and I'd like to get a few more eyes to figure out how to best characterize the fringe nature of Lerner.
Thanks,
jps ( talk) 13:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
We usually let sources decide; here's another: https://books.google.com/books?id=q0huDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA488That's pretty shocking given that the introduction of that work concludes by saying that the book shows than belief in a literal Adam and Fall is consistent historic Christian orthodoxy, and is "powerfully confirmed by many lines of solid scientific evidence". That text disqualifies that source from being reliable for any assessment related to science. A reliable source would be needed to describe Lerner as scientist. If sources say Lerner has a degree in physics, the article can say he has a degree in physics without misusing the word "scientist". Editors do not get to decide that a particular individual must be a scientist because they have views related to science. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
So what is the definition of a scientist, and does he fit it? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
[
[15]]
[16] (bit iffy, but it does not say he is not a scientist, and implies he is one that does not accept the Big Bang theory).
Also he has been published in the New scientist, which would tend to imply something to do with science.
Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
An unrelated aside about the fact that Lerner has no PhD |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Verifiability, not truth, so why not obey policy? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is a source we even use in the article
[17] it calls him chef scientist.
Slatersteven (
talk) 15:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
How about this (same source, different page) [18]. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Is the Wired RS? [19]. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
NOt sure about this one either [20]. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think a person who studies science, does science, bills himself as scientist (e.g. "Chief Scientist" as [ http://www.thespaceshow.com/show/04-mar-2016/broadcast-2658-eric-lerner this source says), and proposes scientific theories, can be called a scientist in Wikipedia, even when the other scientists, whose theories he opposes, call his work pseudoscience. Report both sides – don't decide that he can't be called a scientist. For another example of a person with only one year of grad school, with an undergrad degree in "Engineering and Applied Science", who has held job titles like Chief Scientist and Principal Scientist, who is open to believing some out-of-mainstream theories as serious possibilities and uses the services of alternatives to standard medical practice, and is called a "scientist" in the article about him, see Richard Francis Lyon. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
E. O. Wilson's definition of a scientist is that you can complete the following sentence: "he or she has shown that...". I would add that the customary way to accomplish this is to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Can anyone here complete that sentence for Eric Lerner? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you, @ Dicklyon:, me, any Wikipedia editor, or even cherry-picked sources get to decide who is and who isn't a scientist. I've never heard of such a criteria anywhere, ever. WP is not a forum. We MUST have an objective criteria. For me, the solution is trivial: just ask various societies and organisations what they consider makes a "scientist". As an example, ask AAAS, Royal Society of Biology etc. They are impartial, reliable and verifiable. When I asked the Royal Society of Biology what makes a "biologist", they were clear:
From: <c###@societyofbiology.org>
Subject: Definition of 'Biologist'
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 08:18:52
ie. a degree makes a scientist. That's not my opinion, or anyone else's, but one of the bodies that represents their members. That does not imply that the person does good science, has good ideas, or that people agree with them. -- Iantresman ( talk) 23:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Normal complaints about editors are made in ANI, not on talk pages. Take it there. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Can an admin step in now? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Now we can discus this in it's proper place, please do so. Can some hide this de-rail please? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
A scientist can be further defined by:
how they go about this, for instance by use of statistics (Statisticians) or data (Data scientists) what they’re seeking understanding of, for instance the elements in the universe (Chemists, Geologists etc), or the stars in the sky (Astronomers) where they apply their science, for instance in the food industry (Food Scientist) However all scientists are united by their relentless curiosity and systematic approach to assuaging it. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
A mix of sources, but I couldn't find any that referred to Lerner as a "fringe scientist" or "pseudoscientist", and I did look:
-- Iantresman ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought this had run it's course and we should all drop the stick?
Slatersteven (
talk) 09:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This seems familiar. Oh, right User:Iantresman was flogging this particular dead horse over nine years ago, on behalf of Eric Lerner himself. It didn't go well for Lerner or for Iantresman.
Given that Eric Lerner is at the very center of an Arbcom case specifically on pseudoscience, I'd say that question was settled a long time ago. -- Calton | Talk 14:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
(Undid revision 764212844 by DrChrissy (talk) totally unacceptable for a person topic banned for pseudoscience editing to be opining in this way)[ [33]]? DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
At this point it might be pertinent (and yes I k now I am guilty too) to point out this is a talk page about improving articles, not discus users. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I am bowing out of this as it has just become a petty snipping match that in no way improves anything. I can only ask it to be closed by an admin and hidden fro view so as to protect those of us with at least some pride left. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Uri Geller ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CIA documents already existing in the public archives have been recently posted online, and this has apparently prompted some recent edit warring at the article to give undue weight "to justify point of view" that Harold E. Puthoff's CIA funded study of Geller showed he had psychic powers. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The primaries problem are 3 fold.
1> Only sources that use the title of the page are acceptable.
2> Only "acceptable" knowledge is allowed on Wikipedia (as a policy).
3> Only (in effect) scholarly sources are allowed (see 2 above).
There is also the AFD, but that is another matter. This is about the fact that no sources are being allowed unless they are both scholastic and use the exact phrase "place of power". Slatersteven ( talk) 19:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is now a discussion on WP:VPP as to how to deal with "alternative facts" promulgated by the White House, in which one option suggested is treating them as fringe theories. Discussion here for those who want to chime in. Mangoe ( talk) 14:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest this discussion be closed.Seconded and done. Revert if needed, but please don't. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
See this edit which is pretty much gibberish and poorly sourced. I always prefer to wait for responses and show those as well, but in any case this should be trimmed just to show the various locations suggested. The IP is pushing Diaz-Montexano. The only news stories I see since the broadcast are in the Daily Mail and Sun, British sensationalist tabloids. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Barnard and his committee are diet advocates, and it has recently transpired that these articles have been the subject of paid editing. Could probably use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Portal:Creationism has a DYK section with one entry stating "Did you know - that in the context of Creation–evolution controversy, according to a 2007 Gallup poll,[1]about 66% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" and 38% believe that God guided the process of evolution?" The source is a dead link, but Gallop does have a page with with the relevant polls [37] and the figure is 43&. Is it possible that there was an original DYK with a false figure? I have no idea how to fix this other than just change it with a new source, but that might be against some guideline. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: That portal's DYK section was created on 10 August 2006 by user:Arturo 7. That user's talk page portrays a creationist advocate who had a controversial editing history. Arturo 7 edited only between 13 July 2006 and 26 October 2006, except for this single edit about his user page in October 2007. 342 of his 768 edits are deleted, some no doubt after AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of creation (note the consecutive sections on his talk page).
Looking at the archives of DYK (WP:DYKA), I can find no hook that the text matches the portal's DYK section on the talk pages for creation-evolution controversy (redirect page, small dash name moved to endash in 2009) nor Creation–evolution controversy. Looking at the incoming links to the creation-evolution controversy redirect page from from WP space, there are only two from the DYK archive – Wikipedia:Recent additions 225 and Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/August – plus one from the statistics record page Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Archive 2008, all of which relate to the hook:
from 6 August 2008 ( 5 600 views). The proper endash article title has no incoming links from WP space relating to the DYK project. Searching further, I can't find any evidence that any of these were ever in the DYK section, and edits like this one strongly suggest they had nothing to do with the DYK project. IMO, Portal:Creationism/Did you know and Portal:Creationism/Previous did you knows should be restructured to make clear they are unrelated to the WP:DYK project or deleted. I'm going to post a link to WT:DYK. Thanks, Doug, for raising this question. EdChem ( talk) 21:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I suspect this is not relevant or important at all. If these were ever DYKs, so what? If these weren't DYKs, so what? I'm not sure it makes any sense to make a big deal out of any of it. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Some thoughts on portals I agree with The Rambling Man that we shouldn't make a big deal out of it. I don't think there's any policy against it and if a WikiProject wants to show off content from their scope that for some misfortune or chance wasn't able to be put on the mainpage, we should let them. In one of my more niche contributions, I once tried to get Portal:Linguistics up to featured portal so I actually remember a good deal about portals. The only thing I could never figure out is why we have them at all. I think we should maybe consider why we have portals and the inclusion criteria for what content groupings can qualify for portals, but I digress. Anyway, the spirit of portals, I gather, is to (1) navigate and orient users to basic and important concepts of a topic, and (2) display quality contributions from content within the portal scope. I think that, as long as the DYK links are to articles of quality (in Wikipedia:Portal guidelines it's defined as "above a start-class") and important to the topic, it doesn't really matter if they've been through the DYK process because that's also the spirit of DYK, the time restrictions are just so that they don't get flooded with old content. That being said, this is the fringe theories notice board, so whether it violates that guideline is something different. I just don't want others to think that just because it hasn't been through the WP:DYK process, it automatically shouldn't be included in a portal. That being said, I don't much see what policies the presented hooks are afoul of. They're verifiable, and much "hookier" than a lot of the things put on the mainpage, if the time period or expansion of the articles linked was correct, these hooks would honestly not be the worst submissions to DYK. The only problem is their content. They're meant to support a particular fringe theory: creationism. But that's within the spirit of portals: to promote the content and topic of the portal. To promote content in the scope requires cherry picking facts and misconstruing article content. The portal's topic and therefore purpose is antithetical to NPOV and FRINGE, and, I think, those should win out over the portal guideline. I think the mere existence of Portal:Creationism, not just it's DYKs, violate the spirit and perhaps letter of NPOV and Fringe. I think we should rather give serious discussion to deleting the portal. ( edit conflict) The Rambling Wug (Wugapodes) 22:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Three articles pushing fringe POV that the CIA killed Olsen because "he knew too much". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Another related to the same garden. Claims White House memos exist, but sources are unconfirmable. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The Frank Olson article seems ok, and a fairly balanced look at what could be a complete bit of wingnut conspiracy stuff. Based on the references and stuff, I don't think there's much case for a zillion articles or substantial expansion of the existing, without getting way outside reliable sources. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Article is mainly based on his own work. Not my field, but clearly promotional. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Recently an editor insisted on using a primary source to describe a fringe view, contrary to FRIND. The arguments given were as follows, with my rebuttals.
Going against the principles set out on these pages, particularly policy pages, is unlikely to prove acceptable, although it may be possible to convince fellow editors that an exception ought to be made.
I would like to establish consensus for these two statements:
Manul ~ talk 13:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Just going to leave this in your capable hands. TimothyJosephWood 03:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Stephen Miller (aide)#Note on false claims as to whether claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election — specifically, "tens and thousands of illegal voters" being "bused-in to New Hampshire" — should be described plainly as "false" (as many sources do) or as "widely rejected and described as false by mainstream sources and watchdog groups" (a phrasing advocated by some editors). Comments are welcome. Neutrality talk 14:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Richard M. Swiderski materials used in the article is disputed frequently by various people from the community, the most recent edits that show a substantial differences in facts by sticking to our acceptable content polices seen are 1, 2. The first one excludes any inclusion of the Swiderski material, maybe a non-cooperative or bold approach. The second one looks like inclusionism. Both this edits originates from multiple statements on the inaccuracy of the material used and with complaints of its non-neutrality due to its fringe nature. The article is protected multiple times for edit warring, there also seems a strong resentment from community members and often annoying statements of "Failure or refusal to "get the point". The problem from history seems to be present for 5 years. Somewhere in the middle there is a truth behind this problem. Major complaints I am able to understand are Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree, Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, Wikipedia:Beware grandstanding text and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. The personalisation of the issue also fails to honor anything related to Wikipedia:Negotiation and to a certain extend appropriate Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and good faith is seen lost in its history. I think its a better time now to edit out inconsistencies and incorporate neutral materials. Certain neutral materials I found are wedding customs, history-short version, a theological college thesis paper. As I bring this matter to the noticeboard, I vote for less overclassification of this christian group and avoidance of including overly speculative sections as authoritative evidences.
Some questions about POV, fringe-iness and sourcing bound-up in recent edits. Could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Daniel E. Friedmann ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article on a religious fringe writer. Needs watching. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This is about the pseudoscience pusher Robert Sungenis, see the WP:PROFRINGE edit at [39]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This is no longer just a BLP issue. It has spilled over into naked advocacy for The Principle. The account in question is trying to promote this movie along with Sungenis's weird beliefs almost as if they were the ones running a publicity campaign. [40].
More help would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 17:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Now moving on to the film page! [41] jps ( talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
[42] This led me to Michael Voris which has a lot of work that probably should be done on it. Yikes! jps ( talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I decided to try out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Voris. I am having a hard time understanding how Wikipedia can possibly host a biography of this particular fringe person. jps ( talk) 14:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Needs eyes again. Among other things, I'm not sure about the addition of a number of quotes from Fomenko himself. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Right now, the topic itself does not have much in the medical literature like most CAM topics. This has come up at FTN before.
There's was talk page discussion here on three sources where the the first meta-analysis was fairly critical of certain uses of equine related therapy treatments, primarily that complementary or adjunct treatments should not divert from mainstream treatment resources due to poor study designs, lack of efficacy, etc. The second was more positive while still saying research is lacking, but it wasn't an independent source and was weighted as such. The third was pretty conclusively not reliable at all.
That conversation was a year ago, but editors have since been slowly trying to add in content arguing the content should be balanced between the sources by introducing weasel words (i.e. "some researchers") [44] to the first source's overall statement that the practice should not divert medical resources. Others include saying that the practice is a complementary treatment in addition to regular treatment when the first source clearly indicates it cannot be recommended as an actual treatment at this time. There are also some issues with quoting like scare quotes too.
The main issue in that overall summary diff of the current problems is if it can really be called a complementary treatment without making it appear efficacious in violation of WP:FRINGE due to the lack of efficacy found in the meta-analysis even after a year of not having consensus for it. Eyes are welcome on all the other areas too though. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Napoleon Hill is the author of the 1937 best-selling self-help book, Think and Grow Rich. I'm having great trouble weeding through the massive amount of New Age and self-help mentions of Hill to find some authoritative, scholarly histories/biographies on him that put is work in a historical context. A gizmodo article about Hill is being questioned for reliability at RSN, and the context that he was strongly influenced by the New Thought movement (especially Law of attraction (New Thought) is being questioned. New Thought and the related articles look like they are suffering from the lack of scholarly sources, and proper weight to such sources, as well. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Ronz: It's your opinion about the other Hill sources, that they are "people who want to see Hill as a prophet of the religion." And the New York Times piece is clearly an opinion piece. We can't use that either. Whatever opinions that writer has, they don't belong in a biography on Wikipedia. And right now you seem to be forum shopping since you've got an open case on RSN. Your opinion of the Foundation is wide of the mark since they have his personal papers, manuscripts and other written records that Hill left behind. That's like saying, nobody can use the papers in a presidential library, or in a deceased author's papers for information because you think they are biased. I don't think you understand the work of historians and biographers. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We can't use that either.This isn't the venue to discuss such matters, but thanks for making my point for coming here for help. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Paleontologist Darren Naish has a book coming out called Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths [45] which is already on GBooks in preview. Anyone editing relevant articles should take a look. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Nominated this for deletion per Wikipedia:109PAPERS. Given that the oogie-boogie sites are already discussing it, the people of this noticeboard may want to keep some eyes on the article. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail RS flap has now turned up on Loch Ness monster, because the DM was the venue for at least two of hoax photos. As tends to be the case, every little bit of Nessiana has had to be included, and in particular the 2001 DM/Edwards incident has gotten stuck in a time warp in which the hoax admission hasn't happened yet, at least not until the last sentence. That incident needs to be cut to the bone, but the whole thing needs some considerable compression. Mangoe ( talk) 17:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Aquatic ape hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just noticed that this article has totally degenerated into a "sing the praises of AAH" claptrap.
Help!
jps ( talk) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh well, it proving resistant to improvement. I tried removing the reams of text built on primary source but they've gone right back in ...
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(add) Looking at the history it's apparent the article had a major re-write a few weeks ago
[46] which had the effect of watering-down criticism, giving the "theory" a big free-hit in its own primary-sourced section, and introducing a fair amount of OR and SYNTH.
Alexbrn (
talk) 09:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The stated goal of the re-write was to attempt "to present both sides fairly". The trouble is this falls afoul of WP:GEVAL. The fringe theory is given a lot of space to itself and a lot of reinforcing material (with OR and SYN problems) so as to present this as merely a dispute among scientists, or as the lede now mildly observes "The idea remains controversial". In fact it should be readily apparent what the fringe theory is and what the mainstream theory is, and how the fringe theory is rejected by the mainstream. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone interested in UFO nonsense? Doug Weller talk 13:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This article currently is up for GA review. The current review process and discussion over this issue is over at Talk:America's 60 Families/GA1.
The first question I have is "Is it a fringe theory?". It seems all parties agree that the book is "absolutely conspiracy-minded", in this case about the USA being a plutocracy. I understand that conspiracy theories would fall under Fringe Theories, but this one in particular seems to have some acceptance or at least some credibility. To be clear the conspiracy theory is not that money has undue influence in US politics, but that money has total control of politics in the USA.
The second question I have is "Do fringe theory works require special treatment to fulfill NPOV criteria?". There's no comment in WP:Fringe specifically about fringe theory works which are notable. I looked around and found a notable creationist book article: The Genesis Flood. It seems to relevantly discuss the relation of the fringe book with the mainstream view. In my estimation a similar treatment would be necessary to pass GA NPOV criteria in the America's 60 Families article. However I am not sure and am hoping veterans of dealing with Fringe issues could help out clarifying.
This noticeboard has very few concerns like this one as far as I have seen. This is GA NPOV criteria as opposed to inclusion in wikipedia. This is about a fringe theory work as opposed to an about a fringe idea. Also this is about the USA being a plutocracy, rather than pseudoscience or creationism, I have not seen this type of conspiracy theory here before. -- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a suggestion (also made at the article talk page): What seems to be missing from the article in question is discussion about the book's influence (which is different from, but related to its "reception"). If one googles "60 families control world" you find that lots and lots of fringe theory websites repeat the claims that were (first?) made in the book... indeed many of these websites directly quote it. This book has obviously influenced an entire genre of fringe theories (question: did it perhaps start that genre?) In other words... whether the book itself should be classified as "Fringe" is perhaps a side issue... it certainly had an influence on subsequent fringe theories - and that seems like something our article should discuss. I would suggest that a section on the book's "Influence" be created. Blueboar ( talk) 12:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to all who commented so far. I did not add this to my watchlist or check back, so I didn't see the discussion here as it happened. It seems it is a tough cookie, a tough issue to discuss. Not all participants noticed my distinction between "fringe theory" and "fringe theory work", which was one of my main concerns. And participants chose also not to respond individually to the questions I posed. But the discussion seems to have been somewhat productive. The article passed it's GA nomination - I also changed my objection to weak objection at some point after the addition of some criticism. I am still interested in the discussion even as the immediate cause for discussion has passed.
I note @ Slatersteven: who said Fringe theories have no additional criteria to become GA's. The trouble in part was that the book in question did not meet WP:Fringe at the time as it was a fringe theory book, and WP:Fringe does not talk about works at all, only about the idea or theory itself, or about a mainstream idea which has a fringe theory. I see it as a problem you see, because fringe theory works are then included and fringe theories are substantially described there and no policy seems to directly address the issue. The way I interpreted it was something like what @ 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: described - that a good article on a fringe theory work (unlike a fringe theory itself) would require meeting WP:Fringe, while perhaps a fringe theory work would be notable and be included in wikipedia without addressing it's fringe quality adequately.
I would dispute @ DarjeelingTea: claim that it is not a WP:Fringe because notable and influential people have backed it. I think a similar case can be made in regards to creationism, it is still a fringe theory even if very influential people and major publishers back it. The distinction between mainstream and fringe is not that simple - a very cool case I saw was of a Nobel prize winning scientist then becoming a fringe theorist for psychokinesis. He would be considered a very trustworthy source about scientific matters, but clearly endorsed Fringe theories whose status as such did not change by gaining his support. I don't necessarily think it is a fringe theory, mind you, as I said in my opening post here in the noticeboard - America's 60 Families has some credibility and some acceptance - It might be in a gray area regarding Fringe theory status.
I also want to individually thank @ Blueboar: for his research and constructive attempts to address the fringe aspect. :) The avenues have so far been unproductive, but maybe future research in the same vein will reach results. I am interesting in similar cases as well where such research might also yield results.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 17:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I recently AfD'd this, but even as that discussion runs the article is in danger of turning into a giant festival of fringe, so could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
just FYI. Jytdog ( talk) 17:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
My new favorite fringe theory: [47] [48]
Also see: [49] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
What article are you discussing, or are you saying we need an article on this? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Can somone close this irrelevance it's not about the project, or how to improve it, and Wikipedia is not a forum. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The moon hologram theory reminds me of the theory that Bigfoots are actually inter-dimensional shape-shifters from an alternative universe that can warp in and out of physical reality. It would explain a lot, wouldn't it? The inconsistency of sightings, no bodies being found, etc.
The inventor of the theory, now sadly deceased, was extremely keen, in 2005-2006, to have it dominate the Bigfoot article. See also our article Jon-Erik Beckjord. Long time ago, but I see the paranormal theory, ascribed to "scientists", got an airing on the Bigfoot talkpage quite recently. [51]) Bishonen | talk 17:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC).
This is up for deletion on the position that the members are all hoaxes. There is sentiment towards a rename. Mangoe ( talk) 21:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
IP editor trying to insert some amateur's New Theory— something Babylonian, I gather. Of course it's self-published and nobody has ever heard of it. I may need help Supressing The Truth. Mangoe ( talk) 15:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Bovis scale I believe this article should be deleted, no reliable sources discuss the concept. 31.49.40.248 ( talk) 11:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
here's an article that could use some independent eyes. Jytdog ( talk) 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Could use eyes; not even sure it meets WP:NBOOK. Not sure that WP:NBOOK isn't another too-weak offshoot of WP:N esp. when it comes to fringe topics. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Aiud object ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An aluminum object (greatly resembling a tooth from an construction excavator bucket) found buried near mastodon bones is said by Romanian websites to be millions of years old, a mystery, and/or from aliens. Other sources include bloggers, out-of-date Romanian UFO print magazines, and The Daily Mail. Now up for deletion, but some may have other opinions and insights. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
just FYI. Jytdog ( talk) 21:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I came across the Myers article and I see a fringe proponent has many accounts at highjacking the article.
Banned fringe pusher Jamenta who had an obsession with the parapsychologist Frederic W. H. Myers is now back editing that article on the accounts "Myerslover", "Psychicbias" as well as IP addresses 208.194.97.5 and 71.167.134.66 and others. On the talk page he said he is in the process of writing "a very strong pro-Myers article". This is the same person who has also pushed fringe content in the past at Watseka Wonder He seems to be adding undue weight comments from William James about a discredited paranormal book from Myers. He has done the same on the Second sight. This guy was perm banned on Wikipedia. Is there any chance all his socks can be blocked or reverted? He also has a sock called GPel which he edited the Richard Hodgson article. He is probably pushing fringe content on others. It is the same style of editing to remove skeptical sources or quote Myers or William James at length. Any idea what can be done here? I have a big foot ( talk) 14:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Donald Levine, an Orientalist scholar, asserts that the ruling Amhara in Ethiopia were enslaved by the Afar. This is mentioned almost in passing, with no explanation as to which historical text this is based on [1]. He may have been alluding to marauding by the medieval Adal Sultanate (of which the Afar were a key part), but this too is unclear [2]. As such, it appears to be a tiny fringe claim since no other specialist in the field suggests this. Please advise. Soupforone ( talk) 17:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you The_Four_Deuces, that seems reasonable. Soupforone ( talk) 06:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Just ran into this. I didn't know anything about him until today. Some Mormon history stuff, 9/11, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
hi there. my name is noah kulwin, and i'm the technology editor at vice news. i'm working on a story comparing facebook and wikipedia, and how wikipedia has more successfully kept fake news and misinformation from entering the mainstream. i've already spoken with one wikipedia editor, and have lined up interviews with senior staff at wikipedia/the wikimedia foundation. i'm interested in learning more about wikipedia editors who directly engage with fringe theories (particularly those with a political bent), and i'm curious about your experiences.
my email is listed in the bio of my twitter account (twitter.com/nkulw), and i look forward to hearing more from anyone interested.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.103.131 ( talk • contribs)
Written by a WP:SPA, I just pruned a lot of "more research needed" style stuff from a predatory journal. I don't know if this is woo or not. Guy ( Help!) 15:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a new biography of someone connected with the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. It could use looking over by the fringe-sensitive. Mangoe ( talk) 15:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I PROD'd this but it got deprodded by an IP who advised me to try it. I'm finding good sourcing hard to come by - anybody know more? Alexbrn ( talk) 14:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
An article about a west coast "Alternative Medicine" university that has been the scene of some edit warring. I have protected the page for a week but some extra eyes might be helpful. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Anyone wish to try to fix this BLP? I don't think the article creator undestood what an ABD is. you hardly receive it. His website is here, a site debunking his lost civilization 'find' here. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Am I wrong in my argument that an EL recently added is inappropriate? It may not be the only one but it's the newest. I've now also raised it at the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have decided to collate all these issues under one setting as they are related. For those unaware, Immanuel Velikovsky was synonymous with pseudoscience back in the 1970s as the equivalent to the 2012 doomsdayers or the ancient alien people of today. Wikipedia was early on infected with a number of Velikovskians who have been subsequently sidelined, for the most part, but a lot of cruft remains. I periodically try to clean it out.
jps ( talk) 14:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Third time we've had a deletion discussion on this.
Comment please.
jps ( talk) 20:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
What the hell, let's do talk about deleting this one too.
jps ( talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
C. Leroy Ellenberger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is an interesting case and I think people here may be able to help. C. Leroy Ellenberger was an important debunker of Velikovsky (supporter turned skeptic) who, somewhat like ex-Scientologists being the most hated by Scientology, has inspired the irate furor of Velikovskians. He also has an account here and has been very helpful in providing content for some of the articles we have that discuss Velikovsky, but he has edited his own biography (and I will refrain from linking to it here out of respect for WP:OUTING).
The thing is, his biography is more of an object lesson in the larger tale of Velikovsky pseudoscience than it is an encyclopedic work. Note that many of the sources in our article on him do not rise to the WP:RS level that we typically require. I don't really know what to do about this.
So just thought I'd post about this here and let you all decide what you think.
jps ( talk) 14:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Gunnar Heinsohn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does this neo-Velikovskian pass WP:PROF? I guess so, but it's hard for me to say. In any case, it is very important that we identify his pseudohistory ideas as such, and that is not currently done. Not to mention that the biography looks like a coatrack. See especially: Gunnar Heinsohn#Revision of ancient chronology.
jps ( talk) 14:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm apparently very unappreciated for trying to summarize Gorski.
Maybe you can help clean up my "OR/SYNTH".
jps ( talk) 17:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Spiritual quotient needs attention, and is currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual quotient. – Joe ( talk) 12:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Have any of you taken a look at 1001 Inventions? It looks like it's written as a promotional piece—award-winning this, puffery-puffery-that. Everything involving 1001 Inventions is portrayed in the most positive light, whereas criticism is downplayed and simplified. There's some serious fringe history going on here, at the very least. See this piece from the New York Times about the exhibit, for example: [8]. In the past, we had a serious problem with a small group of editors promoting similarly dubious notions all over the site (i.e., (Islamic figure) was the father of (x), etc.), despite far earlier examples of the technology in use and so on. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, can I get some input regarding this edit, please? I've already diked out the last paragraph on the grounds that "The Mammoth Book of Unexplained Phenomena" seems to be the antithesis of a reliable source. The remaining text expands on tabloid references that were already mentioned, but not detailed.
I have a bit of a sour taste in my mouth regarding this edit since the rest of the article details how she looked up dead relatives of people she was to come in contact with, and the new section is not contextualised. Vashti ( talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I just have tried to fix this article. Criticisms of Cayce have repeatedly been deleted from the article.
A lot of the rest of the article is very favorable to Cayce and is sourced to one of his defenders biographies (Thomas Sugrue, 2003). Any idea what can be done here? 82.132.185.11 ( talk) 23:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I have started a discussion regarding the first sentence of the above linked-to article at Talk:Intelligent design#RfC on phrasing of lede paragraph. The discussion is at this point about possibly framing an RfC about the issue being raised, and I think any input from any parties who frequent this noticeboard would probably be welcome. John Carter ( talk) 01:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't apply to a specific article but I know the GMO "debate" is a big fringe topic. So I was in the grocery store the other day and I saw a bottle of water that said "non-GMO". It was "premium" alkaline water, "blk" (getblk.com). Just wanted everyone else waiting for their Monsanto money to know that yes, now we've got non-GMO water. Roches ( talk) 12:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This reads to me as a bunch of WP:SYN promoting bollocks, but is it notable bollocks? I can't find much in the way of reality-based commentary on it. Guy ( Help!) 11:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a paranormal theory that seeks to explain memory lapse in terms of parallel universes. Its page was deleted in September, with a redirect to a section in Confabulation. However, that article is about a psychiatric condition, so that isn't appropriate. Misremembering names, quotations, or historical events is not a psychiatric condition, and isn't in itself notable. What makes this topic notable (if it is) is that some people refuse to accept their faulty memories are just that: normal, fallible memories. Currently, the section is being build up with more information about this non-existent phenomenon. I tend to think the best response would be to remove the section, but is there a better option?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
This has always been a problem but it's become a bit worse lately.
There are several types of fringe archaeology that editors try to insert in biblical articles. One is the woo-woo variety as exemplified by people such as Ron Wyatt, Bob Cornuke, etc. At the other extreme is probably David Rohl. In the middle are the Creationists, some of whom have also managed to publish in non-Creationists journals, such as Bryant Wood, Douglas Petrovich (see Talk:The Exodus#Avaris, and David Palmer Livingston [10]. A new editor, Korvex ( talk · contribs) is pushing (going so far as saying what "will" be done) such sources in articles such as Ai (Canaan) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Et-Tell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Exodus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(see the articles and their talk pages) and at Talk:Israel. I'm not arguing that we should never use such fringe sources, as at times NPOV requires their use, but eyes are needed. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Willy Munyeta is an article about a self-proclaimed prophet that needs cleaning up. Deletion might be needed, but I'm not certain that it is. Article needs major fixes, help would be appreciated. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
...which was a cross, right? Probably not, if you read this article. Starting in the 1800s, maybe a bit earlier, we start to see various people trying to second-guess Christian tradition and re-interpret scripture. The truth is that these are all extremely minority positions at best. I'm inclined to go at the thing with a chainsaw or even ask for deletion outright, but perhaps others would like to put their oars in. Mangoe ( talk) 21:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see what's wrong with this page to warrant deletion. In every and all research areas scholars go to amazing depths of nitpicking on progressively narrow subjects. Of course, this subject is of natural interest to people who like to argue how many angels can fit the tip of a needle. But a cursory look tells me that the article cites people far from being kranks and many of them have wikipedia articles. Of course, as with any wikipedia articles, this one may be asking for a cleanup, but not for a major panic. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, why jump right here? I see no discussion in article talk page. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
On further reflection I'm going to merge this into crucifixion. Everything here is really about what crucifixion is in general. Mangoe ( talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
An anonymous IP editor is of the opinion that, in the article Jacob Barnett, we are not permitted to assert that it is false that Barnett disproved Einstein's theory of relativity, the Big Bang, and is in line for the Nobel Prize, despite claims made on his behalf. Unfortunately, there are very few appropriately skeptical secondary sources that make this a challenge for WP:V, but lots of sources that make false statements. More editors knowledgeable about fringe theories and the sciences, and how to deal with those on an encyclopedia, would be appreciated. See Talk:Jacob Barnett#Verifying a negative. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
These claims are false.I created that list by copying and pasting from that section (and in this case adding “not” to each item). — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 00:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There has also been a good deal of disagreement over the overall tone, structure, and focus of that article. Some editors feel it’s too deep in the science weeds, not focusing enough on the person. Some feel it can’t be neutral if it’s trying to be too much of an attack piece. Some feel it can’t be neutral if it hints at the existence of a novel theory. Experienced BLP editors would be welcome. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 04:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think the whole article is problematic. If he gets a Nobel prize, if he disproves Einstein, that will be notable, but assertions for or against are not very important.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 13:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have fluency in any of the other languages, but I am perplexed as to the existence of those articles. I wonder if this article gets deleted whether these articles turn out to be just transwiki translations of previous versions. In any case, the problem is, as I see it, that the stub article is WP:TOOSOON. jps ( talk) 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an odd intersection of topics, but since this has to do with removing certain scientific information on an insect because it can be used to make jokes about a political figure, this seemed like the best fitting board.
Neopalpa donaldtrumpi is an insect named after Donald Trump's hair. In entomology, we use various traits to describe species and how they are identified, especially compared to closely related species. In insects, one of the most common features we use are genital differences (structure size, hooks, barbs, etc.). [14] Interestingly (or unfortunately), this species happens to be described as having smaller male genital structures than the other species in its genus, or fewer hairs in females in the species key, which is where the important characteristics are listed (i.e., WP:WEIGHT). Not long after this story hit the news, people started making jokes, etc. out of N. donaldtrumpi for smaller male genitals. That's come full circle now and we've had editors calling to remove references to genital size in part due to this and associations with previous "small hands" jokes about Trump, while also saying that genital size is not important for inclusion. In terms of entomology to say medicine, that's like saying taking a blood pressure reading isn't important for assessing heart health.
You can see current discussion on the talk page. This part of the content is currently included, but since this only hit the news last week, I'd prefer to have more eyes on the article from science-minded folks as there's likely to be more controversy and calls to exclude some of the primary identifying features of the species according to the source. That could also go for people trying to lay into the genital size topic in the article too much as well where you'd run into BLP issues. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I am amazed how tireless Kingofaces43 is in spreading false accusations. Which other forums smearing my name did I miss? How come a self-proclaimed entomologist contributed nothing to the article but a pool of venom in its talk page? Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
For aficionados: Baracktrema obamai—a species of blood fluke. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
We could use some more viewpoints and research on how prominently "pseudoscience" is mentioned in the article, including the lede. The sourcing looks rather poor at this point for what's currently there. Discussion at Talk:Mehmet_Oz#Pseudoscience promoter, or alleged? -- Ronz ( talk) 19:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This could probably also go at WP:RSN, but I'll just drop it here.
Eric Lerner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is an article about a Big Bang denier from the 1990s.
Dicklyon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a longtime editor of the page who thinks that Lerner is a scientist. I think that is a little strange characterization considering he doesn't seem to be working within the scientific field. Right now he is mostly preoccupied with his dense plasma focus company which has been struggling along for 20 years failing to get funding. While he does, from time to time, publish in fringe journals about his peculiar contrarianism, I would not say this rises to the level of "scientist". Dicklyon is under the impression that the man has a PhD, which is also not the case (not that one cannot be a scientist without a PhD, but I am finding it difficult to engage with this person).
The proposed sources for the claim that Lerner is a scientist that Dicklyon has provided have been: (1) an article by Lerner himself, (2) a book about postmodern deep ecology invoking integral theory, and (3) a creationist book about Adam and Eve.
This kind of fringe POV-pushing, whether intentional or not, is often occurring at this page, and I'd like to get a few more eyes to figure out how to best characterize the fringe nature of Lerner.
Thanks,
jps ( talk) 13:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
We usually let sources decide; here's another: https://books.google.com/books?id=q0huDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA488That's pretty shocking given that the introduction of that work concludes by saying that the book shows than belief in a literal Adam and Fall is consistent historic Christian orthodoxy, and is "powerfully confirmed by many lines of solid scientific evidence". That text disqualifies that source from being reliable for any assessment related to science. A reliable source would be needed to describe Lerner as scientist. If sources say Lerner has a degree in physics, the article can say he has a degree in physics without misusing the word "scientist". Editors do not get to decide that a particular individual must be a scientist because they have views related to science. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
So what is the definition of a scientist, and does he fit it? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
[
[15]]
[16] (bit iffy, but it does not say he is not a scientist, and implies he is one that does not accept the Big Bang theory).
Also he has been published in the New scientist, which would tend to imply something to do with science.
Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
An unrelated aside about the fact that Lerner has no PhD |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Verifiability, not truth, so why not obey policy? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is a source we even use in the article
[17] it calls him chef scientist.
Slatersteven (
talk) 15:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
How about this (same source, different page) [18]. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Is the Wired RS? [19]. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
NOt sure about this one either [20]. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think a person who studies science, does science, bills himself as scientist (e.g. "Chief Scientist" as [ http://www.thespaceshow.com/show/04-mar-2016/broadcast-2658-eric-lerner this source says), and proposes scientific theories, can be called a scientist in Wikipedia, even when the other scientists, whose theories he opposes, call his work pseudoscience. Report both sides – don't decide that he can't be called a scientist. For another example of a person with only one year of grad school, with an undergrad degree in "Engineering and Applied Science", who has held job titles like Chief Scientist and Principal Scientist, who is open to believing some out-of-mainstream theories as serious possibilities and uses the services of alternatives to standard medical practice, and is called a "scientist" in the article about him, see Richard Francis Lyon. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
E. O. Wilson's definition of a scientist is that you can complete the following sentence: "he or she has shown that...". I would add that the customary way to accomplish this is to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Can anyone here complete that sentence for Eric Lerner? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you, @ Dicklyon:, me, any Wikipedia editor, or even cherry-picked sources get to decide who is and who isn't a scientist. I've never heard of such a criteria anywhere, ever. WP is not a forum. We MUST have an objective criteria. For me, the solution is trivial: just ask various societies and organisations what they consider makes a "scientist". As an example, ask AAAS, Royal Society of Biology etc. They are impartial, reliable and verifiable. When I asked the Royal Society of Biology what makes a "biologist", they were clear:
From: <c###@societyofbiology.org>
Subject: Definition of 'Biologist'
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 08:18:52
ie. a degree makes a scientist. That's not my opinion, or anyone else's, but one of the bodies that represents their members. That does not imply that the person does good science, has good ideas, or that people agree with them. -- Iantresman ( talk) 23:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Normal complaints about editors are made in ANI, not on talk pages. Take it there. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Can an admin step in now? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Now we can discus this in it's proper place, please do so. Can some hide this de-rail please? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
A scientist can be further defined by:
how they go about this, for instance by use of statistics (Statisticians) or data (Data scientists) what they’re seeking understanding of, for instance the elements in the universe (Chemists, Geologists etc), or the stars in the sky (Astronomers) where they apply their science, for instance in the food industry (Food Scientist) However all scientists are united by their relentless curiosity and systematic approach to assuaging it. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
A mix of sources, but I couldn't find any that referred to Lerner as a "fringe scientist" or "pseudoscientist", and I did look:
-- Iantresman ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought this had run it's course and we should all drop the stick?
Slatersteven (
talk) 09:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This seems familiar. Oh, right User:Iantresman was flogging this particular dead horse over nine years ago, on behalf of Eric Lerner himself. It didn't go well for Lerner or for Iantresman.
Given that Eric Lerner is at the very center of an Arbcom case specifically on pseudoscience, I'd say that question was settled a long time ago. -- Calton | Talk 14:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
(Undid revision 764212844 by DrChrissy (talk) totally unacceptable for a person topic banned for pseudoscience editing to be opining in this way)[ [33]]? DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
At this point it might be pertinent (and yes I k now I am guilty too) to point out this is a talk page about improving articles, not discus users. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I am bowing out of this as it has just become a petty snipping match that in no way improves anything. I can only ask it to be closed by an admin and hidden fro view so as to protect those of us with at least some pride left. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Uri Geller ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CIA documents already existing in the public archives have been recently posted online, and this has apparently prompted some recent edit warring at the article to give undue weight "to justify point of view" that Harold E. Puthoff's CIA funded study of Geller showed he had psychic powers. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The primaries problem are 3 fold.
1> Only sources that use the title of the page are acceptable.
2> Only "acceptable" knowledge is allowed on Wikipedia (as a policy).
3> Only (in effect) scholarly sources are allowed (see 2 above).
There is also the AFD, but that is another matter. This is about the fact that no sources are being allowed unless they are both scholastic and use the exact phrase "place of power". Slatersteven ( talk) 19:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is now a discussion on WP:VPP as to how to deal with "alternative facts" promulgated by the White House, in which one option suggested is treating them as fringe theories. Discussion here for those who want to chime in. Mangoe ( talk) 14:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest this discussion be closed.Seconded and done. Revert if needed, but please don't. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
See this edit which is pretty much gibberish and poorly sourced. I always prefer to wait for responses and show those as well, but in any case this should be trimmed just to show the various locations suggested. The IP is pushing Diaz-Montexano. The only news stories I see since the broadcast are in the Daily Mail and Sun, British sensationalist tabloids. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Barnard and his committee are diet advocates, and it has recently transpired that these articles have been the subject of paid editing. Could probably use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Portal:Creationism has a DYK section with one entry stating "Did you know - that in the context of Creation–evolution controversy, according to a 2007 Gallup poll,[1]about 66% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" and 38% believe that God guided the process of evolution?" The source is a dead link, but Gallop does have a page with with the relevant polls [37] and the figure is 43&. Is it possible that there was an original DYK with a false figure? I have no idea how to fix this other than just change it with a new source, but that might be against some guideline. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: That portal's DYK section was created on 10 August 2006 by user:Arturo 7. That user's talk page portrays a creationist advocate who had a controversial editing history. Arturo 7 edited only between 13 July 2006 and 26 October 2006, except for this single edit about his user page in October 2007. 342 of his 768 edits are deleted, some no doubt after AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of creation (note the consecutive sections on his talk page).
Looking at the archives of DYK (WP:DYKA), I can find no hook that the text matches the portal's DYK section on the talk pages for creation-evolution controversy (redirect page, small dash name moved to endash in 2009) nor Creation–evolution controversy. Looking at the incoming links to the creation-evolution controversy redirect page from from WP space, there are only two from the DYK archive – Wikipedia:Recent additions 225 and Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/August – plus one from the statistics record page Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Archive 2008, all of which relate to the hook:
from 6 August 2008 ( 5 600 views). The proper endash article title has no incoming links from WP space relating to the DYK project. Searching further, I can't find any evidence that any of these were ever in the DYK section, and edits like this one strongly suggest they had nothing to do with the DYK project. IMO, Portal:Creationism/Did you know and Portal:Creationism/Previous did you knows should be restructured to make clear they are unrelated to the WP:DYK project or deleted. I'm going to post a link to WT:DYK. Thanks, Doug, for raising this question. EdChem ( talk) 21:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I suspect this is not relevant or important at all. If these were ever DYKs, so what? If these weren't DYKs, so what? I'm not sure it makes any sense to make a big deal out of any of it. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Some thoughts on portals I agree with The Rambling Man that we shouldn't make a big deal out of it. I don't think there's any policy against it and if a WikiProject wants to show off content from their scope that for some misfortune or chance wasn't able to be put on the mainpage, we should let them. In one of my more niche contributions, I once tried to get Portal:Linguistics up to featured portal so I actually remember a good deal about portals. The only thing I could never figure out is why we have them at all. I think we should maybe consider why we have portals and the inclusion criteria for what content groupings can qualify for portals, but I digress. Anyway, the spirit of portals, I gather, is to (1) navigate and orient users to basic and important concepts of a topic, and (2) display quality contributions from content within the portal scope. I think that, as long as the DYK links are to articles of quality (in Wikipedia:Portal guidelines it's defined as "above a start-class") and important to the topic, it doesn't really matter if they've been through the DYK process because that's also the spirit of DYK, the time restrictions are just so that they don't get flooded with old content. That being said, this is the fringe theories notice board, so whether it violates that guideline is something different. I just don't want others to think that just because it hasn't been through the WP:DYK process, it automatically shouldn't be included in a portal. That being said, I don't much see what policies the presented hooks are afoul of. They're verifiable, and much "hookier" than a lot of the things put on the mainpage, if the time period or expansion of the articles linked was correct, these hooks would honestly not be the worst submissions to DYK. The only problem is their content. They're meant to support a particular fringe theory: creationism. But that's within the spirit of portals: to promote the content and topic of the portal. To promote content in the scope requires cherry picking facts and misconstruing article content. The portal's topic and therefore purpose is antithetical to NPOV and FRINGE, and, I think, those should win out over the portal guideline. I think the mere existence of Portal:Creationism, not just it's DYKs, violate the spirit and perhaps letter of NPOV and Fringe. I think we should rather give serious discussion to deleting the portal. ( edit conflict) The Rambling Wug (Wugapodes) 22:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Three articles pushing fringe POV that the CIA killed Olsen because "he knew too much". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Another related to the same garden. Claims White House memos exist, but sources are unconfirmable. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The Frank Olson article seems ok, and a fairly balanced look at what could be a complete bit of wingnut conspiracy stuff. Based on the references and stuff, I don't think there's much case for a zillion articles or substantial expansion of the existing, without getting way outside reliable sources. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Article is mainly based on his own work. Not my field, but clearly promotional. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Recently an editor insisted on using a primary source to describe a fringe view, contrary to FRIND. The arguments given were as follows, with my rebuttals.
Going against the principles set out on these pages, particularly policy pages, is unlikely to prove acceptable, although it may be possible to convince fellow editors that an exception ought to be made.
I would like to establish consensus for these two statements:
Manul ~ talk 13:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Just going to leave this in your capable hands. TimothyJosephWood 03:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Stephen Miller (aide)#Note on false claims as to whether claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election — specifically, "tens and thousands of illegal voters" being "bused-in to New Hampshire" — should be described plainly as "false" (as many sources do) or as "widely rejected and described as false by mainstream sources and watchdog groups" (a phrasing advocated by some editors). Comments are welcome. Neutrality talk 14:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Richard M. Swiderski materials used in the article is disputed frequently by various people from the community, the most recent edits that show a substantial differences in facts by sticking to our acceptable content polices seen are 1, 2. The first one excludes any inclusion of the Swiderski material, maybe a non-cooperative or bold approach. The second one looks like inclusionism. Both this edits originates from multiple statements on the inaccuracy of the material used and with complaints of its non-neutrality due to its fringe nature. The article is protected multiple times for edit warring, there also seems a strong resentment from community members and often annoying statements of "Failure or refusal to "get the point". The problem from history seems to be present for 5 years. Somewhere in the middle there is a truth behind this problem. Major complaints I am able to understand are Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree, Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, Wikipedia:Beware grandstanding text and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. The personalisation of the issue also fails to honor anything related to Wikipedia:Negotiation and to a certain extend appropriate Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and good faith is seen lost in its history. I think its a better time now to edit out inconsistencies and incorporate neutral materials. Certain neutral materials I found are wedding customs, history-short version, a theological college thesis paper. As I bring this matter to the noticeboard, I vote for less overclassification of this christian group and avoidance of including overly speculative sections as authoritative evidences.
Some questions about POV, fringe-iness and sourcing bound-up in recent edits. Could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Daniel E. Friedmann ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article on a religious fringe writer. Needs watching. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This is about the pseudoscience pusher Robert Sungenis, see the WP:PROFRINGE edit at [39]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This is no longer just a BLP issue. It has spilled over into naked advocacy for The Principle. The account in question is trying to promote this movie along with Sungenis's weird beliefs almost as if they were the ones running a publicity campaign. [40].
More help would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 17:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Now moving on to the film page! [41] jps ( talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
[42] This led me to Michael Voris which has a lot of work that probably should be done on it. Yikes! jps ( talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I decided to try out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Voris. I am having a hard time understanding how Wikipedia can possibly host a biography of this particular fringe person. jps ( talk) 14:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Needs eyes again. Among other things, I'm not sure about the addition of a number of quotes from Fomenko himself. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Right now, the topic itself does not have much in the medical literature like most CAM topics. This has come up at FTN before.
There's was talk page discussion here on three sources where the the first meta-analysis was fairly critical of certain uses of equine related therapy treatments, primarily that complementary or adjunct treatments should not divert from mainstream treatment resources due to poor study designs, lack of efficacy, etc. The second was more positive while still saying research is lacking, but it wasn't an independent source and was weighted as such. The third was pretty conclusively not reliable at all.
That conversation was a year ago, but editors have since been slowly trying to add in content arguing the content should be balanced between the sources by introducing weasel words (i.e. "some researchers") [44] to the first source's overall statement that the practice should not divert medical resources. Others include saying that the practice is a complementary treatment in addition to regular treatment when the first source clearly indicates it cannot be recommended as an actual treatment at this time. There are also some issues with quoting like scare quotes too.
The main issue in that overall summary diff of the current problems is if it can really be called a complementary treatment without making it appear efficacious in violation of WP:FRINGE due to the lack of efficacy found in the meta-analysis even after a year of not having consensus for it. Eyes are welcome on all the other areas too though. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Napoleon Hill is the author of the 1937 best-selling self-help book, Think and Grow Rich. I'm having great trouble weeding through the massive amount of New Age and self-help mentions of Hill to find some authoritative, scholarly histories/biographies on him that put is work in a historical context. A gizmodo article about Hill is being questioned for reliability at RSN, and the context that he was strongly influenced by the New Thought movement (especially Law of attraction (New Thought) is being questioned. New Thought and the related articles look like they are suffering from the lack of scholarly sources, and proper weight to such sources, as well. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Ronz: It's your opinion about the other Hill sources, that they are "people who want to see Hill as a prophet of the religion." And the New York Times piece is clearly an opinion piece. We can't use that either. Whatever opinions that writer has, they don't belong in a biography on Wikipedia. And right now you seem to be forum shopping since you've got an open case on RSN. Your opinion of the Foundation is wide of the mark since they have his personal papers, manuscripts and other written records that Hill left behind. That's like saying, nobody can use the papers in a presidential library, or in a deceased author's papers for information because you think they are biased. I don't think you understand the work of historians and biographers. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We can't use that either.This isn't the venue to discuss such matters, but thanks for making my point for coming here for help. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Paleontologist Darren Naish has a book coming out called Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths [45] which is already on GBooks in preview. Anyone editing relevant articles should take a look. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Nominated this for deletion per Wikipedia:109PAPERS. Given that the oogie-boogie sites are already discussing it, the people of this noticeboard may want to keep some eyes on the article. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail RS flap has now turned up on Loch Ness monster, because the DM was the venue for at least two of hoax photos. As tends to be the case, every little bit of Nessiana has had to be included, and in particular the 2001 DM/Edwards incident has gotten stuck in a time warp in which the hoax admission hasn't happened yet, at least not until the last sentence. That incident needs to be cut to the bone, but the whole thing needs some considerable compression. Mangoe ( talk) 17:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Aquatic ape hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just noticed that this article has totally degenerated into a "sing the praises of AAH" claptrap.
Help!
jps ( talk) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh well, it proving resistant to improvement. I tried removing the reams of text built on primary source but they've gone right back in ...
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(add) Looking at the history it's apparent the article had a major re-write a few weeks ago
[46] which had the effect of watering-down criticism, giving the "theory" a big free-hit in its own primary-sourced section, and introducing a fair amount of OR and SYNTH.
Alexbrn (
talk) 09:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The stated goal of the re-write was to attempt "to present both sides fairly". The trouble is this falls afoul of WP:GEVAL. The fringe theory is given a lot of space to itself and a lot of reinforcing material (with OR and SYN problems) so as to present this as merely a dispute among scientists, or as the lede now mildly observes "The idea remains controversial". In fact it should be readily apparent what the fringe theory is and what the mainstream theory is, and how the fringe theory is rejected by the mainstream. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone interested in UFO nonsense? Doug Weller talk 13:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This article currently is up for GA review. The current review process and discussion over this issue is over at Talk:America's 60 Families/GA1.
The first question I have is "Is it a fringe theory?". It seems all parties agree that the book is "absolutely conspiracy-minded", in this case about the USA being a plutocracy. I understand that conspiracy theories would fall under Fringe Theories, but this one in particular seems to have some acceptance or at least some credibility. To be clear the conspiracy theory is not that money has undue influence in US politics, but that money has total control of politics in the USA.
The second question I have is "Do fringe theory works require special treatment to fulfill NPOV criteria?". There's no comment in WP:Fringe specifically about fringe theory works which are notable. I looked around and found a notable creationist book article: The Genesis Flood. It seems to relevantly discuss the relation of the fringe book with the mainstream view. In my estimation a similar treatment would be necessary to pass GA NPOV criteria in the America's 60 Families article. However I am not sure and am hoping veterans of dealing with Fringe issues could help out clarifying.
This noticeboard has very few concerns like this one as far as I have seen. This is GA NPOV criteria as opposed to inclusion in wikipedia. This is about a fringe theory work as opposed to an about a fringe idea. Also this is about the USA being a plutocracy, rather than pseudoscience or creationism, I have not seen this type of conspiracy theory here before. -- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a suggestion (also made at the article talk page): What seems to be missing from the article in question is discussion about the book's influence (which is different from, but related to its "reception"). If one googles "60 families control world" you find that lots and lots of fringe theory websites repeat the claims that were (first?) made in the book... indeed many of these websites directly quote it. This book has obviously influenced an entire genre of fringe theories (question: did it perhaps start that genre?) In other words... whether the book itself should be classified as "Fringe" is perhaps a side issue... it certainly had an influence on subsequent fringe theories - and that seems like something our article should discuss. I would suggest that a section on the book's "Influence" be created. Blueboar ( talk) 12:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to all who commented so far. I did not add this to my watchlist or check back, so I didn't see the discussion here as it happened. It seems it is a tough cookie, a tough issue to discuss. Not all participants noticed my distinction between "fringe theory" and "fringe theory work", which was one of my main concerns. And participants chose also not to respond individually to the questions I posed. But the discussion seems to have been somewhat productive. The article passed it's GA nomination - I also changed my objection to weak objection at some point after the addition of some criticism. I am still interested in the discussion even as the immediate cause for discussion has passed.
I note @ Slatersteven: who said Fringe theories have no additional criteria to become GA's. The trouble in part was that the book in question did not meet WP:Fringe at the time as it was a fringe theory book, and WP:Fringe does not talk about works at all, only about the idea or theory itself, or about a mainstream idea which has a fringe theory. I see it as a problem you see, because fringe theory works are then included and fringe theories are substantially described there and no policy seems to directly address the issue. The way I interpreted it was something like what @ 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: described - that a good article on a fringe theory work (unlike a fringe theory itself) would require meeting WP:Fringe, while perhaps a fringe theory work would be notable and be included in wikipedia without addressing it's fringe quality adequately.
I would dispute @ DarjeelingTea: claim that it is not a WP:Fringe because notable and influential people have backed it. I think a similar case can be made in regards to creationism, it is still a fringe theory even if very influential people and major publishers back it. The distinction between mainstream and fringe is not that simple - a very cool case I saw was of a Nobel prize winning scientist then becoming a fringe theorist for psychokinesis. He would be considered a very trustworthy source about scientific matters, but clearly endorsed Fringe theories whose status as such did not change by gaining his support. I don't necessarily think it is a fringe theory, mind you, as I said in my opening post here in the noticeboard - America's 60 Families has some credibility and some acceptance - It might be in a gray area regarding Fringe theory status.
I also want to individually thank @ Blueboar: for his research and constructive attempts to address the fringe aspect. :) The avenues have so far been unproductive, but maybe future research in the same vein will reach results. I am interesting in similar cases as well where such research might also yield results.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 17:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I recently AfD'd this, but even as that discussion runs the article is in danger of turning into a giant festival of fringe, so could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
just FYI. Jytdog ( talk) 17:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
My new favorite fringe theory: [47] [48]
Also see: [49] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
What article are you discussing, or are you saying we need an article on this? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Can somone close this irrelevance it's not about the project, or how to improve it, and Wikipedia is not a forum. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The moon hologram theory reminds me of the theory that Bigfoots are actually inter-dimensional shape-shifters from an alternative universe that can warp in and out of physical reality. It would explain a lot, wouldn't it? The inconsistency of sightings, no bodies being found, etc.
The inventor of the theory, now sadly deceased, was extremely keen, in 2005-2006, to have it dominate the Bigfoot article. See also our article Jon-Erik Beckjord. Long time ago, but I see the paranormal theory, ascribed to "scientists", got an airing on the Bigfoot talkpage quite recently. [51]) Bishonen | talk 17:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC).
This is up for deletion on the position that the members are all hoaxes. There is sentiment towards a rename. Mangoe ( talk) 21:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
IP editor trying to insert some amateur's New Theory— something Babylonian, I gather. Of course it's self-published and nobody has ever heard of it. I may need help Supressing The Truth. Mangoe ( talk) 15:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Bovis scale I believe this article should be deleted, no reliable sources discuss the concept. 31.49.40.248 ( talk) 11:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
here's an article that could use some independent eyes. Jytdog ( talk) 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Could use eyes; not even sure it meets WP:NBOOK. Not sure that WP:NBOOK isn't another too-weak offshoot of WP:N esp. when it comes to fringe topics. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Aiud object ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An aluminum object (greatly resembling a tooth from an construction excavator bucket) found buried near mastodon bones is said by Romanian websites to be millions of years old, a mystery, and/or from aliens. Other sources include bloggers, out-of-date Romanian UFO print magazines, and The Daily Mail. Now up for deletion, but some may have other opinions and insights. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
just FYI. Jytdog ( talk) 21:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I came across the Myers article and I see a fringe proponent has many accounts at highjacking the article.
Banned fringe pusher Jamenta who had an obsession with the parapsychologist Frederic W. H. Myers is now back editing that article on the accounts "Myerslover", "Psychicbias" as well as IP addresses 208.194.97.5 and 71.167.134.66 and others. On the talk page he said he is in the process of writing "a very strong pro-Myers article". This is the same person who has also pushed fringe content in the past at Watseka Wonder He seems to be adding undue weight comments from William James about a discredited paranormal book from Myers. He has done the same on the Second sight. This guy was perm banned on Wikipedia. Is there any chance all his socks can be blocked or reverted? He also has a sock called GPel which he edited the Richard Hodgson article. He is probably pushing fringe content on others. It is the same style of editing to remove skeptical sources or quote Myers or William James at length. Any idea what can be done here? I have a big foot ( talk) 14:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)