This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Tried to speedy this but was declined. Having difficulty finding sources: even among fad diets this one seems fairly fringe. Anyone know more? Alexbrn ( talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Edward J. Steele is a fringe scientist who promoted a form of Lamarckism Problem is no independent research confirmed his experiments in the early 80s. Little scientist today take his stuff seriously.
See his edits at Somatic hypermutation massive spam of Steele's own papers. He has done the same as Lamarckism and on his own article and elsewhere.
See the article Edward J. Steele the intro he has written is outrageous. I would suggest all of his promotion should be reverted. He also quote mines historian Peter J. Bowler in 1983 but Bowler has dismissed Steele in his later publications noting that his experiments were never replicated.
Update - I assume this user is associated with Steele, on wikipediacommons he uploaded a photograph of steele which he claimed was himself, it has since been deleted. It seems this user has pushed fringe science in the past in relation to panspermia. 82.132.216.220 ( talk)
See his two massive edits at Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance also undue promotion of Steele. 82.132.216.220 ( talk) 07:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Can someone revert all this guys edits on Steele, he has even inserted him into the lead at Lamarckism and all over that article, this has got out of hand. I would revert him myself but I am on the mobile currently. 82.132.216.220 ( talk) 07:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please participate at Talk:Black Knight satellite#Requested move 12 March 2017 -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This AfD may be relevant:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Billy Meier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could use some more eyes on this article due to a new editor, self-identified as a "Billy Meier researcher", whatever that means, but clearly a believer, despite all evidence to the contrary. He seems to have stopped citing his own articles, after being told about WP:COI, but now he's citing blogs, attacking Meier critics, and generally pushing his POV under the guise of "neutrality". Additional vigilance would be helpful. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 00:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Yet another IP is trying to make pro-fringe edits to the article.
Arianewiki1 is doing a decent job of warding them off, but someone more familiar with the recent kurfluffle on said subject might want to step in to help her. 70.209.148.234 ( talk) 13:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WP:RSN that is probably of interest to FRINGE watchers. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Two_sources_in_the_lede_of_Alkaline_diet. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 19:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, Forum shopping season is upon us. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Alkaline_diet_and_.22false_belief.22 Dbrodbeck ( talk) 20:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
One for the cold fusion aficionados. Wikipedia is saying his work is "very compelling". Alexbrn ( talk) 04:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Fringey fringey stuff, but is there anything salvageable? Guy ( Help!) 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Mark Dice has
started
throwing
a Twitter
tantrum
over
being called a conspiracy theorist, resulting in a flux of
WP:SPA meatpuppets. The page needs more eyes.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 01:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks to be a conspiracy theory driven tv programme with a huge NPOV problem in the article. And zero sources. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not that clearcut. Part of the article mentions the Persecution of Copts in Egypt, which is a factual problem. Another covers the 2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan, which is also factual. At least part of the subject matter is not fringe.
Good point, however, about the lack of sources. There are no sources, a single external link, and practically no categorization. It either needs a lot of work or a nomination for deletion. Dimadick ( talk) 10:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Something is missing. - Roxy the dog. bark 21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
If anyone has the courage, I posted that two years ago (short version: part of the article may be a hoax).
I could have posted sooner, I guess, but I just now realized that there was this claim based on an article from Forschende Komplementärmedizin ("Research in Alternative Medicine", which I would guess is not a MEDRS source), and decided to do something about it. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
More eyes would be useful here. Got some folks who want us to treat meridians like they are real. Jytdog ( talk) 04:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should amend to say that vitalism is qi that arose in the West to avoid the WP:Systemic bias of Wikipedia. After all, China predates "the West" by several centuries. jps ( talk) 06:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
"You cannot prove that meridians are NOT real." and "Science isn't the end all and be all of determining what is true, unless you subscribe to scientism as a belief system." really are editorial perspectives which are not helpful. Here are some uncontroversial assertions:
It may indeed be a bit clunky to summarize these points as "Meridians are not real." But it is hardly inaccurate nor is it hardly a "belief system". It's just a description of reality.
jps ( talk) 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
jps You have made a lot of assumptions here which are incorrect. The Primo Vascular system as discovered by North Korean scientist Kim Bong-Han in the 1960's, is posited by many to be an anatomical or physiological basis for meridians.
https://www.lumennatura.com/2016/04/23/primo-vascular-system-the-anatomy-of-meridians/
Secondly, Qi or Chi has been measured many times by many people in many different countries over many decades.
The work of Reinhard Voll is but one example.
http://www.biontologyarizona.com/dr-reinhard-voll/
There are a lot of people who could communicate to you that meridians are real and could even show you in person that they are real. Reality that makes itself from the present supposedly scientific world view, is scientism, simple and clear, and Scientism represents a world view, and not "reality" as experienced by all human beings. Science itself that does not fit into a presumed world view of those who subscribe to scientism is therefore not considered science, which is actually just a judgement call, not actually inquiring and exploring as real science should be.
Probrooks ( talk) 01:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The conversation should be one of what is scientific and what is pseudo-scientific, not of what is real and what is unreal. Reality is a vague and nebulous concept, and the word encourages vandalism from those who differ on what constitutes the realm of reality. If the acupuncture practitioners want to claim that their work is scientifically sound, though, that's easy enough to refute. TOOTCB ( talk) 04:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Currently this article is seeing some disagreement centred on whether it is loaded and perjorative to call the concept underlying the diet a "false belief". Input from fringe-savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
We treat Christ myth theory as a fringe idea, because scholars of Biblical history see it that way. (The evidence that Christ existed is weak, but that does not necessarily prove that his figure has any connection with older myths.) Does the recent scholarship of Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster change that? Carrier is a historian of the ancient world, Lataster similar but still completing his PhD although impressively published for a student. If that article does require revision, would there be a knock-on for other articles about Jesus? Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Carrier's PhD work concerned ancient history of science and was done in a Classics Department, so he's not trained in Biblical history--that's typically done in a Religious Studies Department. Carrier doesn't have an academic position, either, so he's coming to this as an outsider, which does little to argue against the CMT being a fringe theory. His work is certainly not a sign that there's a big shift of attitudes among experts in the field. --Akhilleus ( talk)
A "superfood" salesman and "direct response marketer" (i.e. spammer). Text I just removed:
Also included under Awards, an "award" from Natural News, PR-sourced nominations (with no independent source and no indication of being placed, let alone winning) for a business award.
The first AfD was procedurally kept as the nominator ended up banninated, but I do not think this spammer is notable. Guy ( Help!) 10:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
A while ago I removed a huge nu,mber of self-sourced statements - basically a blow by blow of AVN's vexatious litigation and bogus claims, sourced in each case to AVN's own press release making the bpgus claim. user:Bilby restored them i a series of edits. I did not see that, so on my next run of pruning "references" to AVN.org.au, I removed it again, with a slight feeling of deja-vu. Turns out that feeling was right, as th ehistory shows. Bilby promptly restored it all again.
Bilby is also the editor who has worked hard to water down critical content about anti-vaccinaitonist Judith Wilyman, and her supervisor and fellow crank Brian Martin.
Now, I spend far too much time watching the pro-disease lobby to be dispassionate about this, so I would like others to look into these edits and see if there is a problem. Guy ( Help!) 23:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
My ability to even is critically depleted by this article. Guy ( Help!) 22:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe this article should be deleted, no reliable sources. The creator also has a history of pushing fringe beliefs in regard to NDES. 82.132.223.79 ( talk) 10:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Also see his edits at near death experience. 82.132.223.79 ( talk) 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I would normally just report this over on the AIV board, but under their rules I think it would be denied. (It's not "pure" vandalism, and it's impossible to properly warn this person because they change IPs all the time). Maybe someone more experienced than I in admin requests can suggest a way to request an appropriate IP range block to get this person's attention.
In cleaning up some vandalism on my watchlist, I noticed today there is an IP range from an ISP on the island of Guernsey (off the coast of France in the English Channel) that is quite persistently adding fringe material to numerous different articles.
From writing style and interests it's clearly the same person, though there are other edits from the same range that may well be from different users. This person is very interested in psychokinesis (PK), Potassium-40 (and it's use in PK & other stuff), warp drives and various physics fringe theories, time travel, superconductors and occasionally UFOs. They usually post long paragraphs of material that is completely unreferenced, and therefore quickly reverted.
Here are examples of recent diffs of recent fringe-relevant edits from different IPs in this range, I believe all of these have been reverted already (not all by me): [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
Based on writing style the same person often posts obscure trivia to electronics technology articles, again totally unsourced except for occasional mentions of someone named "A De Guerin". Here are a couple of those diffs: [12] [13]
Anyway, just wanted to give everyone a heads up if you are reverting stuff from an IP in the range 185.3.100.0 to 185.3.100.255, it might be this same person.
If someone knows the correct way to suggest a light temporary range block to get this person's attention, please chime in. I know how to report at WP:AIV but my experience is the admins there are looking for cut-and-dried cases of teenagers with spray paint type vandalism, and this doesn't really fit the mold. -- Krelnik ( talk) 21:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This biography has been a target of psychic believers and Montgomery fans, there is massive undue weight to fringe viewpoints, especially the intro. Most of the article is unsourced and criticisms were removed from the article over time. Can anyone be bold and step it and nuke some of it? As it stands it is in a bad way and very pro fringe. 82.132.215.104 ( talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Billy Meier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The bio article on widely-debunked UFO fraud Billy Meier could use a bit of help. The lead has been repaired, but body is full of pro-UFO argumentation sourced to fringe authors. Lately, a devoted proponent is hell bent on inserting pro-fringe-view opinions sourced to "experts" like Wendelle Stevens. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
While reading through a chain of articles from the previous topic, I ran into Corrado Balducci#Extraterrestrials with the claim in Wikipedia's voice of "...the Vatican holds the honor and distinction of being the first modern nation state to disclose the existence of the extraterrestrial reality to the general public." The previous statement is sourced (not all the best, but still sourced) but I seriously question any of them supporting the rest of the paragraph. Review is requested. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dtalbott/bio notes (2nd nomination).
Seems like an ongoing ritual.
jps ( talk) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
CXPowell has challenged the characterization of Bill Murphy (businessman) as a promoter of fringe conspiracy theories regarding the alleged manipulation of the price of gold. Murphy is one of the founders of GATA, an organization that has been widely criticized for promotion of these conspiracy theories. His edit introduced language which suggested his claims were accurate. See also this message on my talk page. Thoughts? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
A new single purpose account, User:Brainydad, removing criticism, using article to argue her fringe views, etc. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I am an author and a human being. A biography and background of my book were published on Wikipedia years ago. The page is SUZANNE OLSSON. My daughter and grand daughter happily started editing the initial article, but their edits were continually hacked. I fought with some editors to make corrections. This resulted in me being labeled a 'sock puppet' (I didn't even know what the word meant) I was accused of every Wiki sin and banned from Wiki by these very same editors who insisted on very biased and slanted edits. The topic of my book, "Jesus in Kashmir, The Lost Tomb' is about religion, and this generates personal opinion, 'slants', and biases from some Wiki editors (Like you, Doug?). Because some Wiki editors are religious, they tend to slant the article to reflect their personal views. For example, one comment states this is a "fringe theory" regardless that millions of people worldwide dont agree. Has anyone said that Magdalene as wife of Jesus is a "fringe" theory? No. In fact the tomb of Jesus has more substantiating evidence than Magdalene as wife to Jesus. Why insert derogatory remarks that reflects a non-existant opinion this is a "fringe " theory? After several years, it came to my attention that as the article currently appears, gross errors and unfavorable 'slants' and personal comments remain in the current article.
When corrections were again attempted over the past few weeks by various people worldwide,the same Wiki editor again reverted to his preferred edits, although these contain gross errors. He continues to attack the contributors more than the contents. The contents are accurate. The links are not to Wiki pages and are also accurate.
It is impossible for me or anyone to make any changes, updates, or corrections. One example is the claim that tomb of Jesus in India was first mentioned by the Ahmadii Muslims. This is blatantly false, yet every attempt to correct this and insert the correct information-with links- has resulted in revisions back to the false statements by the same 'editor'. Brainydad made recent corrections after many hours and days of being extremely careful listing links and sources- being as accurate as possible , but these edits were also immediately reverted by the same user who harassed me and my family, and all wiki editors years ago. I would like the page to be locked after the corrections are made. I am asking help from Wikipedia administrators. This has been going on for too many years now. If you are a Wiki administrator, please help me. Doug, stop showing your predujice. This has no place on Wikiepdia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne Olsson ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
connected contributor}}
on the talk page. You can then suggest edits to the page, to be actioned by non-involved editors, using a {{
COI_editnotice}}
which would also be placed on the talk page of the article. If this solution is amenable to you, then please declare who you are on your user page (not your talk page), respond below, and then the talk page of the wikipedia article can be updated accordingly. Please can I remind you to sign any posts with four tildas. I had to search the history to see who wrote the above. Thank you.
Luther Blissetts (
talk) 18:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)This article makes me stabby, but is it valid? Guy ( Help!) 20:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Regenerative agriculture is an approach to food and farming systems that regenerates topsoil and enhances biodiversity now and long into the future." is a description which would absolutely encompass crop rotation and other farming techniques (not my forte, sorry I can't think of any more examples) which have been practiced for a long, long time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I know the section for this is still open above, but I'd like to re-highlight Aquatic ape hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Currently the editors of the article include jps ( talk) going against User:MjolnirPants (who is a self-admitted advocate, albeit relatively well-behaved), as well as three pro-fringe POV-warriors, one of which just expressed willingness to edit war over the article. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
As an example, many of the critics in Langdon 1997 have now become invalid or been refuted by later publications like Bender et al., this antiqued review is still prominently cited in the article.As far as I know, Langdon published the only comprehensive review of the theory. Regardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of his critiques, his review is a prominent feature of the subject and deserves significant weight.
Meanwhile we have an article which meanders about in its description and never makes any substantive claims.I think focusing on cleaning up the Efforts made to test hypotheses section will correct that. As things sit, that section doesn't even address the heading, but instead documents attempts by the handful of proponents of this hypothesis to argue for it. I'm of the opinion that the entire section needs to go, though if we trim it down and point out some of the evidence that's been cited in the RSes as not supporting the AAH, that might make the section workable. I've already trimmed down the section describing the hypothesis, so that it is just a list of specific claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The existence of a human settlements that ate seafood along the coast is hardly evidence of "almost exclusive coastal subsistence". It's unclear to me how you can make that claim with a straight face. jps ( talk) 11:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Everyone alive today is descended from a group of people from a single region who survived this catastrophe. The southern coast of Africa would have been one of the few spots where humans could survive during this climate crisis because it harbors an abundance of shellfish and edible plants. -- Curtis Marean [24]
mitochondrial DNA variation in isolated "relict" populations in southeast Asia supports the view that there was only a single dispersal from Africa, most likely via a southern coastal route, through India and onward into southeast Asia and Australasia. -- Vincent Macaulay et al.
I could really use some help here. The work has now started to clear out the "research" section, and I'm finding a lot of issues. In particular, AAH proponents have published a variety of papers which have clear relevance to AAH, but are not always made explicit in connection. These include papers on nutrition, locomotion, and diving. Even when the claims are made explicit in connection, the problem is that there isn't a lot of analysis being done. It feels quite similar to cold fusion papers. Wikipedia right now is basically serving as a [WP:SOAP|soapbox]] for AAH by making the implicit claim that independent research is confirming AAH left and right. It doesn't help matters much that I am basically the only person editing the page who seems to be concerned about the over-reliance on primary sources like this. Help? jps ( talk) 17:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I want to draw the attention of those of you who may be able to help but may also have grown tired of all this to a recent struggle over the use of a paper published in Medical Hypotheses. This is indicative of the kind of push being had at that article. The issue here is that poor-quality sources are being preferred when they are pro-AAH but meanwhile the skeptical critiques are typically removed from the page, sometimes in direct defiance of WP:PARITY. We have people arguing on the talkpage that David Attenborough's radio show is somehow a more serious source than, for example, a blogpost written by professor of biology.
I understand that people don't like getting down in the weeds, as it were, but it is important that we do so here so that we can get to an article that can achieve some modicum of stability without being a weird paen like it was before I started working on this.
jps ( talk) 11:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Aquatic ape hypothesis/archive1.
I encourage people to add their comments there and help continue to improve the article. Assessment would be appreciated as well (currently assessed at C-class).
jps ( talk) 18:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Article on a psychic cyclist could use some work. Note that I'm taking Maxmillien de Lafayette, [25] author of over 2500 books according to his blurb on Amnazon, to RSN - we shouldn't be using UFO researchers as sources, and we use him for a load of BLPs. [26] Doug Weller talk 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Seeking Help from Life science Experts
/info/en/?search=Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis
The draft above discusses a grand problem in Biology "The species Problem"... The draft is titled 'Species Branding Hypothesis' and (as I believe) has the solution to this age old problem.
I am concern that my draft could be rejected out as belonging to "Fringe theories"... I need help from Subject Matter Experts who are Biologist dealing with Taxonomy, systematics, Evolutionary biology etc... to validate the draft and add support...
Kind regards, Joseph J.
Jayabalan.joseph ( talk) 21:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Roger D. Craig ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Minor character in the Who's Who of JFK conspiracy lore. There is insufficient material in reliable secondary sources, so what remains is a primary source, an e-mail posted on a forum (from the notorious unreliable Spartacus website, I might add), and a dead link that used to link to a collection of works by a conspiracy theorist (i.e. Penn Jones, Jr.). This appears to be a form of a coat rack onto which one can hang links to various conspiracy books, websites, and You Tube videos. Thoughts? Keep, Delete, or Redirect to something like Trial of Clay Shaw? - Location ( talk) 13:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
David Ferrie ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
If interested, see Talk:David Ferrie#RfC about the inclusion of allegations made by William Gaudet. - Location ( talk) 05:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
As is happening with British Israelism, this article seems to have a number of sources that are just minor websites and is promoting a minor group that wouldn't merit an article and may not be much more than a few people and a website for all I can tell. 13:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs)
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.
Please see Talk:Plummer_v._State#Request_for_Comment_-_Internet_meme_section where the dispute is over how to source discussion of FRINGE legal concepts. Jytdog ( talk) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.... If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.It just seems strange to me that we would set aside key standards about WP:SECONDARY just to present, talk about, and then debunk these so-called "fringe" theories, rather than simply ignore them entirely, giving them the attention they deserve: NONE. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Robert Sungenis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let's include a list of self-published books from a fringe Catholic geocentrist on his biography page, shall we? That's a reasonable thing to do, right?
I don't have the patience to deal with this ongoing nonsense.
jps ( talk) 15:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The notable works are already included in the article. There is no point in having a list. It's not okay to revert when you have no justification for the inclusion. jps ( talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
So is it or is it not true that not all of Mr Sungenis's publications (that have been reported on in RS) are not mentioned in the article? Is it also not true that we actually were (in the article) discussing one of his books but I had to (yesterday) actually add the title of that book? Thus (as of the ranching of this thread) the article did not mention (by name) all of his notable works. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The reasons why I think the Robert Sungenis Wikipedia page should have a publications/bibliography section are:
1.) He is a recognized scholar in the field of Catholic Apologetics. The following scholars from various fields (Theology, Physics, Astronomy, etc.) have endorsed his work:
Not By Faith Alone: a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Ronald K. Tecelli, S.J. c.) Dr. Robert Fastiggi d.) Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas e.) Karl Keating f.) Rev. George W. Rutler g.) Scott Hahn, Ph.D. h.) Patrick Madrid i.) Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. j.) William Marshner k.) Rev. Paul Rothermel l.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D. m.) Professor John Saward n.) Rev. Pablo Gadenz o.) Professor Philip Blosser p.) Dr. Arthur Sippo q.) Steve Ray
Not By Bread Alone: a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Reverend Mitchell Pacwa c.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D.
Not By Scripture Alone: a.) Dr. Peter Kreeft
Galileo was Wrong The Church Was Right: a.) Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D. b.) Vincent J. Schmithorst, Ph.D. c.) Gerald Benitz, M.A., Ph.D. d.) Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D. e.) E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. f.) Joseph A. Strada, Ph.D. g.) Russell T. Arndts, Ph.D. h.) Thaddeus J. Kozinski, Ph.D. i.) Martin G. Selbrede j.) John Domen, M.S. k.) John Salza
2.) Not all his writings are self-published. If self-published was really the problem, then why not only include works that are not self-published?
Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, Queenship Publishing (1996), 774 pp. ISBN 1-57918-008-6
Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Queenship Publishing (1997), 650 pp. ISBN 1-57918-055-8
How Can I Get to Heaven? The Bible's Teaching on Salvation Made Easy to Understand, Queenship Publishing (1997), 334 pp. ISBN 1-57918-007-8
Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Queenship Publishing (2000), 450 pp. ISBN 1-57918-124-4
The Gospel According to Matthew (Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, Vol. 1), Queenship Publishing (2003), 427 pp. ISBN 1-57918-236-4
The Apocalypse of St. John (Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, Vol. 2), Queenship Publishing (2007), 544 pp. ISBN 1-57918-329-8
The Consecration of Russia: How Seven Popes Failed to Heed Heaven’s Command and Brought Turmoil to the Church and the World, Hometown Publications, Inc. copyright 2013, 384 pages, ISBN 978-0-9841859-9-3.
3.) Both Slatersteven and Nomoskedasticity have made valid arguments in the Robert Sungenis Talk Page that have not been refuted. Sungenis writings have been mentioned in secondary sources. Why not mention only those writings in the publication/bibliography section if the problem really was whether or not they are mentioned in secondary sources?
4.) There is a broad consensus in Wikipedia of allowing BLPs to have Publications/Bibliography sections.
5.) Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.
Conclusion: The Robert Sungenis Wikipedia page should have a Bibliography/Publications section. Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 20:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Sungenis is a recognized scholar in the field of Catholic Apologetics. Even if you remove Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right and the scholars who endorsed it, you are still left with all these theologians and apologists who have endorsed his apologetic work:
a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Ronald K. Tecelli, S.J. c.) Dr. Robert Fastiggi d.) Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas e.) Karl Keating f.) Rev. George W. Rutler g.) Scott Hahn, Ph.D. h.) Patrick Madrid i.) Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. j.) William Marshner k.) Rev. Paul Rothermel l.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D. m.) Professor John Saward n.) Rev. Pablo Gadenz o.) Professor Philip Blosser p.) Dr. Arthur Sippo q.) Steve Ray r.) Reverend Mitchell Pacwa s.) Dr. Peter Kreeft
Sample of the Endorsements
Not By Faith Alone
Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas: “While this present work is clearly scholarly, it must be distinguished from many other efforts along these lines over the past five centuries.”
Dr. Scott Hahn: “What may come as a surprise, however, is the fact that this work represents the first book-length response by an American Catholic to Protestant attacks against the Catholic Church’s teaching on faith and justification in more than half a century — perhaps longer, since I am not familiar with a single title written in the 20th century!”
Dr. Arthur Sippo: “This book not only deals with the historic debates on the question of justification dating from the 16th century, it is also the first apologetic book to directly challenge the recent writings of Protestant critics of Catholicism such as McGrath, Sproul, Geisler, McCarthy, MacArthur, White, et al.”
Dr. Robert Fastiggi: “This study shows Robert Sungenis to be a theologian and scholar of the first rank.”
Not By Bread Alone
Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz: "Robert Sungenis has prepared a wonderful defense and explanation of the Holy Eucharist based on Sacred Scripture and Catholic theology.”
Reverend Mitchell Pacwa: “Robert Sungenis' examination of the Catholic teaching on the Mass is a careful, step by theological step understanding of a key doctrine. He gives the reader the Scripture passages and exegesis, the Patristic and the Conciliar documentation.”
Dr. Thomas Howard: "Robert Sungenis' work - all of it - fills the word "exhaustive" with fresh, and even exhilarating, significance.”
Not By Scripture Alone
Dr. Peter Kreeft: "This book is the single most important, systematic, logical, sustained, direct, multifaceted treatment of this central issue that I know of."
The End Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 04:07, 21 April 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 needs major pruning of fantasy relationships, e.g. Anne Sullivan and Helen Keller. Mangoe ( talk) 11:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
All rather moot as it has been deleted. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow. This is really bad even by the generally poor standard we see for most Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory articles. Hopelessly POV and PROFRINGE. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The problems I mentioned above concerning British Israelism are spreading. New edits to Ten Lost Tribes, removal of Ten Lost Tribes and British Israelism from Pseudohistory. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Complaint on the talk page that this article is negative. Doug Weller talk 04:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the majority of the article should neutrally describe what BI is and what it's proponents believe... but it should not do so in a way that makes the reader think it is accepted by a significant number of people. The reader needs to understand that it is widely rejected by historians, and is a fringe pseudohistorical concept. Blueboar ( talk) 00:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Possible COI editor @ Brainwavescience: has recently added material [31] [32] similar to that removed previously, sourcing much to newspaper articles and to a primary journal article authored by disclosed COI editor Neuroscientist1. Rather than edit war, I bring the matter here for consideration. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I have attempted to clear this article up, this user Impersonal1914 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since February 2016, has been using the article to massively promote a fringe organisation called suncenter.org. As above any eyes welcome. He/she will probably attempt to revert when they next log in. 81.154.213.104 ( talk) 17:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Brian D. Litman ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
In my ongoing search for fringe sources, I was led to this article. I am wondering if someone else could take a look at it, particular the section on Brian D. Litman#KGB Archive Release on Kennedy Assassin, as it appears to be one of those article built upon questionable sources (e.g. many cites to qontinuum.org, wildernessofmirrors.org), fringe sources about JFK (e.g. James W. Douglass, jfklancer.com), and primary sources (e.g. Warren Commission documents). The subject likely has enough coverage to meet our standards of notability, but it seems a bit of a stretch to allow some of these sources. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 13:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
There is an on going problem with this user Jonparkyn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Jenny Cockell article pushing fringe views and deleting skeptical sources. The user is repeatedly altering and removing Joe Nickell as a source from the article, describing Nickell as writing "lies" and inserting a pro-fringe view about reincarnation sourced to Cockell's own book but no page numbers given. Would appreciate if anyone could add this article to their watch-list. This is a slow on-going problem by a single purpose account. 81.154.213.104 ( talk) 16:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Jenny Cockell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a problem with the use of Joe Nickell's Sceptic responses. Because he didn't use the facts, but derived his answers from possibly a third party source that was profoundly inaccurate, his comments reproduced on this page are potentially libellous.
I've become concerned about the contributions of a user. User:Velars ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been adding content to House of Frankopan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages, stating that the house is current and that previous edits were "inaccurate and libelous", although the new Frankopans have no relation to the old house. There was a discussion about this some time ago, but no one seems to be watching the page. I'm unsure what to do or where to post it.-- Auric talk 16:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Is this something well accepted in the academia?-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:30, 28 April 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.
Of Pandas and People ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's another discussion about describing ID as pseudoscience in the lead, this time in Talk:Of Pandas and People rather than in the core intelligent design article, where such discussions take place with some regularity. Because of this, it has not attracted enough eyes so far. Anyone care to chime in? — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 18:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Operação Prato ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So credulous. So sensationalized. So poorly sourced.
jps ( talk) 17:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Commons:File:ChristianityBranches.svg
I'm not very active on Commons (I don't even know whether those folks have an FTN) and know absolutely nothing about image editing (to the point where, when it comes up at work, I usually use MS Paint), but it seemed not inappropriate to bring this up here.
"Early Christianity" is not actually a thing. There were a bunch of different Christianities since the very beginning. Jesus was one person who probably taught a fairly internally consistent but not all-encompassing interpretation of the Judaism of his day, but at no point was there a group of people calling themselves "Christians" who all held the same belief system, and modern scholars don't call that belief system "Early Christianity". Ctrl+F this page for "Christianities" or "anachronistic" for a (very) basic explanation. I seem to recall another lecture (by John P. Meier) on Yale Divinity School's YouTube channel that briefly addressed the likely origins of some of these divisions by attributing them to the not all-encompassing nature of Jesus's teachings, but I forget which one and don't have a transcript on hand.
I know that this was probably an accident, since it's impossible to construct a diagram that accurately represents different "branches" of early Christianity, and it would be beside the point, so they just had a single brown bar on the left for convenience's sake, and someone decided to give it a label that seemed appropriate to them, without thinking about it very deeply. But does anyone else think that just removing the words "Early Christianity" would be a good idea? It's obvious from the dates that the diagram is chronological, so it's not really necessary to have a label.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
[i]n Early Christianity, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church were one. Whether this was a good-faith misunderstanding on the part of whoever wrote that is really beside the point, although FWIW very few people could put together this diagram without knowing that "[i]n Early Christianity, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church were one" is seen by most scholars as a very anachronistic claim.
It's anachronistic in the first century to even talk about "Christianity" as one thing, because as we'll show, there were different views of Jesus, there were different views of the Jewish law.[33]
Early Christianity was a kaleidoscope of sects and ideas that make modern Christianity seem like a monolith despite divisions between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians.[34]
Maybe work on fixing Early Christianity before fixing the image? jps ( talk) 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Depends on what you're using the diagram for. Of course, the diagram is from the perspective of Western Christendom and doesn't include modern innovations past the Protestant Reformation and it implies that Early Christianity is everything before the Great Schism which is, of course, a POV that many do not share. These, however, are editorial points that don't speak to the purpose of the image which is to get a sense of the order when various Christian sects split from each other and from whom. Sure, to not center it on Eastern Churches is obviously biased, but that is not really a "fringe theory". jps ( talk) 12:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Words fail me. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The part "Animals can help reduce blood pressure, cholesterol, triglyceride and feelings of loneliness.[3]" appears to be a SYN violation or it is unrelated to the page. It does not mention yoga or goats. QuackGuru ( talk) 12:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is nominally about the abdomen in Japanese martial arts and traditional medicine, but it meanders readily into all sorts of tangential and pro-fringe stuff and has never really gotten any attention because it's nearly an orphan (6 articles link to it). Seems to be in this noticeboard's wheelhouse. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Charles B. Moore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please put this article (and others like it) on your watchlist to prevent such degradations in the future. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion there at [35] about whether and how the political conspiracy theories regarding the murder of Seth Rich should be covered in the article. Should they be described at all, or is that merely a pro-fringe insinuation? Is it adequate to call the conspiracy theories what they are without using some of the more colorful (and arguably less encyclopedic) qualifiers some sources use to describe them (eg, "right wing", "baseless", "far-fetched"...)? Editors that are experienced with Fringe subjects should have a look and comment. 20:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This article describes a theory used in the animal rights movement. It is not a mainstream view in food psychology or sociology. I think the article does a fine job of describing carnism, but I feel it needs contextualising that this is animal rights theorists talking to other animal rights theorists. The problem is that no one else talks about carnism: I've not found any literature from other viewpoints. However, that may just be that I've not spent much time on this! So, I thought this would be an appropriate place to seek input on how to depict a minority theory. (I did suggest a change to the lede, but another editor felt my citations were insufficient, probably fairly.) Bondegezou ( talk) 16:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was updated last month.
It has some excellent points that may help us in many of our articles on the subject (and those subjects that have been labeled as) pseudoscience.
jps ( talk) 00:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This BLP has gone through a long series of back-and-forth editing instigated by a paid editor. There were some direct statements that mentioned she is a "promoter of pseudoscience" that were recently removed from the lede and sorta worked into the line about alternative medicine and fad diets. More eyes on this article are needed to make sure the fringe issues are adequately addressed. Perhaps some of the editors from the BLP noticeboard are less aware of the vulnerability of such an article to PRO:FRINGE. Delta13C ( talk) 06:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be fringe, ie pseudoscience. [36] [37] [38] As it stands the article says it's disputed but also describes it in Wikipedia's voice as though it's a real syndrome, which it isn't. We all have false memories. See for instance the work of Julia Shaw (psychologist), whose book I've just finished - anyone interested in the subject of memory needs to read it. an article by her Doug Weller talk 09:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Doug, with all due respect, the edit comment of your statement above [41] (" 'False Memory Syndrome' is best characterized as a pseudoscientific syndrome that was developed to defend against claims of child abuse") shows your bias. Yes some abusers use this as a defense, but there are legitimate cases where the following happens:
Source: Chris French, a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London, where he heads the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, writing for The Guardian. [42]
This is a delicate situation. On the one hand, there is no doubt that some legitimate sexual abusers of children use this as a defense. But there is also no doubt that some innocent people are accused. The answer is neither to blindly accept or blindly reject claim of childhood sexual abuse but rather to seek collaborating evidence.
Related: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Political decoy#RfC about the inclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 17:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The section William Happer#Views is in need of some serious attention -- it consists primarily of a long list of quotes from the subject's publications, without the accompanying context that the quoted statements are rejected by the scientific community, false, misleading, or some combination thereof. (One lovely paragraph observes that criticisms exist, without mentioning what they are; others use sources that perform critical analysis only to support the existence of false claims and not to evaluate them.) -- JBL ( talk) 19:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
While no one is actively editing the article at the moment, the discussion on the article talk page has expanded. It would be nice if a few other editors would weigh in on which of the two versions ( old new) is more appropriate. (And also perhaps to further improve the section, which is still in need of work!) -- JBL ( talk) 20:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Dowsing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP has added quite a lot of content to this article in the past couple of days. At first glance the edits look pretty legit, but I only had time for a first glance, and will give it a better look this evening. Extra eyes appreciated. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 23:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The Koren Specific Technique article is virtually duplicate content of Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Koren_Specific_Technique. I don't see a reason for a stand alone article. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Karyn Kupcinet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For those of you who have been involved in trimming the conspiracy stuff in Dorothy Kilgallen (@ Ad Orientem, Cullen328, LuckyLouie, and JzG:), the same editor appears to be having a go at Karyn Kupcinet. - Location ( talk) 02:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Jason Martell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Questionable sources in an article about a paranormal researcher. See also the decade old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Martell. - Location ( talk) 03:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
B. Alan Wallace ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While the article is about a relatively minor figure, there has been steady trickle of editors periodically showing up to make unambiguously WP:PROFRINGE edits, most recently one with an apparent COI making edits from an IP at the institution where the article subject resides.
I have no idea how I first became involved with the article, and really I wish it could be deleted, but apparently that's been tried before.
No urgent attention is needed, but it'd be nice if some of y'all could add it to your watchlist. Manul ~ talk 13:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention this here after reading this] over at the Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame. The problem with stuff like this is of course the lack of reliable sources, few if any archaeologists or geologists are going to waste their time over something like this. It is a genuine archaeological site, but not nearly as old as claimed. [56] Nor surprisingly it has government support. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a repeat, but I could not find it in the archives. Readers of this noticeboard will no doubt be interested in an article titled WikiTweaks: The Encyclopaedia that Anyone (Who is a Skeptic) Can Edit by Mel Hopper Koppelman in the Journal of Chinese Medicine from February. (A full text PDF is available there, it's only 5 pages). It seems to document problems the author points out in trying to update our article. A friend of mine dug around in the archives of the Acupuncture page, and near as they can tell (and assuming they identified the right account) this person never actually tried to edit the article itself, they just got into fights on the talk page and got themselves banned without actually doing any editing. It amazes me how often that happens. -- Krelnik ( talk) 18:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
it shows that editors have determined what the article should say and searched for sources to support what they want to includeActually, doing exactly that produces much better results so I think your argument fails here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Tedd Koren ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I propose the article be nominated for deletion. QuackGuru ( talk) 14:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
IPs adding Sitchin nonsense. Doug Weller talk 21:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The problems with this article are ongoing. There have been blocks and TBANs, and now that some of the blocks have expired it's getting POV-ish again. More eyes would be appreciated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. [1]
References
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Tried to speedy this but was declined. Having difficulty finding sources: even among fad diets this one seems fairly fringe. Anyone know more? Alexbrn ( talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Edward J. Steele is a fringe scientist who promoted a form of Lamarckism Problem is no independent research confirmed his experiments in the early 80s. Little scientist today take his stuff seriously.
See his edits at Somatic hypermutation massive spam of Steele's own papers. He has done the same as Lamarckism and on his own article and elsewhere.
See the article Edward J. Steele the intro he has written is outrageous. I would suggest all of his promotion should be reverted. He also quote mines historian Peter J. Bowler in 1983 but Bowler has dismissed Steele in his later publications noting that his experiments were never replicated.
Update - I assume this user is associated with Steele, on wikipediacommons he uploaded a photograph of steele which he claimed was himself, it has since been deleted. It seems this user has pushed fringe science in the past in relation to panspermia. 82.132.216.220 ( talk)
See his two massive edits at Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance also undue promotion of Steele. 82.132.216.220 ( talk) 07:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Can someone revert all this guys edits on Steele, he has even inserted him into the lead at Lamarckism and all over that article, this has got out of hand. I would revert him myself but I am on the mobile currently. 82.132.216.220 ( talk) 07:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please participate at Talk:Black Knight satellite#Requested move 12 March 2017 -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This AfD may be relevant:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Billy Meier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could use some more eyes on this article due to a new editor, self-identified as a "Billy Meier researcher", whatever that means, but clearly a believer, despite all evidence to the contrary. He seems to have stopped citing his own articles, after being told about WP:COI, but now he's citing blogs, attacking Meier critics, and generally pushing his POV under the guise of "neutrality". Additional vigilance would be helpful. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 00:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Yet another IP is trying to make pro-fringe edits to the article.
Arianewiki1 is doing a decent job of warding them off, but someone more familiar with the recent kurfluffle on said subject might want to step in to help her. 70.209.148.234 ( talk) 13:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WP:RSN that is probably of interest to FRINGE watchers. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Two_sources_in_the_lede_of_Alkaline_diet. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 19:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, Forum shopping season is upon us. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Alkaline_diet_and_.22false_belief.22 Dbrodbeck ( talk) 20:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
One for the cold fusion aficionados. Wikipedia is saying his work is "very compelling". Alexbrn ( talk) 04:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Fringey fringey stuff, but is there anything salvageable? Guy ( Help!) 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Mark Dice has
started
throwing
a Twitter
tantrum
over
being called a conspiracy theorist, resulting in a flux of
WP:SPA meatpuppets. The page needs more eyes.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 01:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks to be a conspiracy theory driven tv programme with a huge NPOV problem in the article. And zero sources. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not that clearcut. Part of the article mentions the Persecution of Copts in Egypt, which is a factual problem. Another covers the 2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan, which is also factual. At least part of the subject matter is not fringe.
Good point, however, about the lack of sources. There are no sources, a single external link, and practically no categorization. It either needs a lot of work or a nomination for deletion. Dimadick ( talk) 10:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Something is missing. - Roxy the dog. bark 21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
If anyone has the courage, I posted that two years ago (short version: part of the article may be a hoax).
I could have posted sooner, I guess, but I just now realized that there was this claim based on an article from Forschende Komplementärmedizin ("Research in Alternative Medicine", which I would guess is not a MEDRS source), and decided to do something about it. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
More eyes would be useful here. Got some folks who want us to treat meridians like they are real. Jytdog ( talk) 04:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should amend to say that vitalism is qi that arose in the West to avoid the WP:Systemic bias of Wikipedia. After all, China predates "the West" by several centuries. jps ( talk) 06:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
"You cannot prove that meridians are NOT real." and "Science isn't the end all and be all of determining what is true, unless you subscribe to scientism as a belief system." really are editorial perspectives which are not helpful. Here are some uncontroversial assertions:
It may indeed be a bit clunky to summarize these points as "Meridians are not real." But it is hardly inaccurate nor is it hardly a "belief system". It's just a description of reality.
jps ( talk) 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
jps You have made a lot of assumptions here which are incorrect. The Primo Vascular system as discovered by North Korean scientist Kim Bong-Han in the 1960's, is posited by many to be an anatomical or physiological basis for meridians.
https://www.lumennatura.com/2016/04/23/primo-vascular-system-the-anatomy-of-meridians/
Secondly, Qi or Chi has been measured many times by many people in many different countries over many decades.
The work of Reinhard Voll is but one example.
http://www.biontologyarizona.com/dr-reinhard-voll/
There are a lot of people who could communicate to you that meridians are real and could even show you in person that they are real. Reality that makes itself from the present supposedly scientific world view, is scientism, simple and clear, and Scientism represents a world view, and not "reality" as experienced by all human beings. Science itself that does not fit into a presumed world view of those who subscribe to scientism is therefore not considered science, which is actually just a judgement call, not actually inquiring and exploring as real science should be.
Probrooks ( talk) 01:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The conversation should be one of what is scientific and what is pseudo-scientific, not of what is real and what is unreal. Reality is a vague and nebulous concept, and the word encourages vandalism from those who differ on what constitutes the realm of reality. If the acupuncture practitioners want to claim that their work is scientifically sound, though, that's easy enough to refute. TOOTCB ( talk) 04:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Currently this article is seeing some disagreement centred on whether it is loaded and perjorative to call the concept underlying the diet a "false belief". Input from fringe-savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
We treat Christ myth theory as a fringe idea, because scholars of Biblical history see it that way. (The evidence that Christ existed is weak, but that does not necessarily prove that his figure has any connection with older myths.) Does the recent scholarship of Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster change that? Carrier is a historian of the ancient world, Lataster similar but still completing his PhD although impressively published for a student. If that article does require revision, would there be a knock-on for other articles about Jesus? Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Carrier's PhD work concerned ancient history of science and was done in a Classics Department, so he's not trained in Biblical history--that's typically done in a Religious Studies Department. Carrier doesn't have an academic position, either, so he's coming to this as an outsider, which does little to argue against the CMT being a fringe theory. His work is certainly not a sign that there's a big shift of attitudes among experts in the field. --Akhilleus ( talk)
A "superfood" salesman and "direct response marketer" (i.e. spammer). Text I just removed:
Also included under Awards, an "award" from Natural News, PR-sourced nominations (with no independent source and no indication of being placed, let alone winning) for a business award.
The first AfD was procedurally kept as the nominator ended up banninated, but I do not think this spammer is notable. Guy ( Help!) 10:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
A while ago I removed a huge nu,mber of self-sourced statements - basically a blow by blow of AVN's vexatious litigation and bogus claims, sourced in each case to AVN's own press release making the bpgus claim. user:Bilby restored them i a series of edits. I did not see that, so on my next run of pruning "references" to AVN.org.au, I removed it again, with a slight feeling of deja-vu. Turns out that feeling was right, as th ehistory shows. Bilby promptly restored it all again.
Bilby is also the editor who has worked hard to water down critical content about anti-vaccinaitonist Judith Wilyman, and her supervisor and fellow crank Brian Martin.
Now, I spend far too much time watching the pro-disease lobby to be dispassionate about this, so I would like others to look into these edits and see if there is a problem. Guy ( Help!) 23:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
My ability to even is critically depleted by this article. Guy ( Help!) 22:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe this article should be deleted, no reliable sources. The creator also has a history of pushing fringe beliefs in regard to NDES. 82.132.223.79 ( talk) 10:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Also see his edits at near death experience. 82.132.223.79 ( talk) 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I would normally just report this over on the AIV board, but under their rules I think it would be denied. (It's not "pure" vandalism, and it's impossible to properly warn this person because they change IPs all the time). Maybe someone more experienced than I in admin requests can suggest a way to request an appropriate IP range block to get this person's attention.
In cleaning up some vandalism on my watchlist, I noticed today there is an IP range from an ISP on the island of Guernsey (off the coast of France in the English Channel) that is quite persistently adding fringe material to numerous different articles.
From writing style and interests it's clearly the same person, though there are other edits from the same range that may well be from different users. This person is very interested in psychokinesis (PK), Potassium-40 (and it's use in PK & other stuff), warp drives and various physics fringe theories, time travel, superconductors and occasionally UFOs. They usually post long paragraphs of material that is completely unreferenced, and therefore quickly reverted.
Here are examples of recent diffs of recent fringe-relevant edits from different IPs in this range, I believe all of these have been reverted already (not all by me): [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
Based on writing style the same person often posts obscure trivia to electronics technology articles, again totally unsourced except for occasional mentions of someone named "A De Guerin". Here are a couple of those diffs: [12] [13]
Anyway, just wanted to give everyone a heads up if you are reverting stuff from an IP in the range 185.3.100.0 to 185.3.100.255, it might be this same person.
If someone knows the correct way to suggest a light temporary range block to get this person's attention, please chime in. I know how to report at WP:AIV but my experience is the admins there are looking for cut-and-dried cases of teenagers with spray paint type vandalism, and this doesn't really fit the mold. -- Krelnik ( talk) 21:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This biography has been a target of psychic believers and Montgomery fans, there is massive undue weight to fringe viewpoints, especially the intro. Most of the article is unsourced and criticisms were removed from the article over time. Can anyone be bold and step it and nuke some of it? As it stands it is in a bad way and very pro fringe. 82.132.215.104 ( talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Billy Meier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The bio article on widely-debunked UFO fraud Billy Meier could use a bit of help. The lead has been repaired, but body is full of pro-UFO argumentation sourced to fringe authors. Lately, a devoted proponent is hell bent on inserting pro-fringe-view opinions sourced to "experts" like Wendelle Stevens. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
While reading through a chain of articles from the previous topic, I ran into Corrado Balducci#Extraterrestrials with the claim in Wikipedia's voice of "...the Vatican holds the honor and distinction of being the first modern nation state to disclose the existence of the extraterrestrial reality to the general public." The previous statement is sourced (not all the best, but still sourced) but I seriously question any of them supporting the rest of the paragraph. Review is requested. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dtalbott/bio notes (2nd nomination).
Seems like an ongoing ritual.
jps ( talk) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
CXPowell has challenged the characterization of Bill Murphy (businessman) as a promoter of fringe conspiracy theories regarding the alleged manipulation of the price of gold. Murphy is one of the founders of GATA, an organization that has been widely criticized for promotion of these conspiracy theories. His edit introduced language which suggested his claims were accurate. See also this message on my talk page. Thoughts? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
A new single purpose account, User:Brainydad, removing criticism, using article to argue her fringe views, etc. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I am an author and a human being. A biography and background of my book were published on Wikipedia years ago. The page is SUZANNE OLSSON. My daughter and grand daughter happily started editing the initial article, but their edits were continually hacked. I fought with some editors to make corrections. This resulted in me being labeled a 'sock puppet' (I didn't even know what the word meant) I was accused of every Wiki sin and banned from Wiki by these very same editors who insisted on very biased and slanted edits. The topic of my book, "Jesus in Kashmir, The Lost Tomb' is about religion, and this generates personal opinion, 'slants', and biases from some Wiki editors (Like you, Doug?). Because some Wiki editors are religious, they tend to slant the article to reflect their personal views. For example, one comment states this is a "fringe theory" regardless that millions of people worldwide dont agree. Has anyone said that Magdalene as wife of Jesus is a "fringe" theory? No. In fact the tomb of Jesus has more substantiating evidence than Magdalene as wife to Jesus. Why insert derogatory remarks that reflects a non-existant opinion this is a "fringe " theory? After several years, it came to my attention that as the article currently appears, gross errors and unfavorable 'slants' and personal comments remain in the current article.
When corrections were again attempted over the past few weeks by various people worldwide,the same Wiki editor again reverted to his preferred edits, although these contain gross errors. He continues to attack the contributors more than the contents. The contents are accurate. The links are not to Wiki pages and are also accurate.
It is impossible for me or anyone to make any changes, updates, or corrections. One example is the claim that tomb of Jesus in India was first mentioned by the Ahmadii Muslims. This is blatantly false, yet every attempt to correct this and insert the correct information-with links- has resulted in revisions back to the false statements by the same 'editor'. Brainydad made recent corrections after many hours and days of being extremely careful listing links and sources- being as accurate as possible , but these edits were also immediately reverted by the same user who harassed me and my family, and all wiki editors years ago. I would like the page to be locked after the corrections are made. I am asking help from Wikipedia administrators. This has been going on for too many years now. If you are a Wiki administrator, please help me. Doug, stop showing your predujice. This has no place on Wikiepdia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne Olsson ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
connected contributor}}
on the talk page. You can then suggest edits to the page, to be actioned by non-involved editors, using a {{
COI_editnotice}}
which would also be placed on the talk page of the article. If this solution is amenable to you, then please declare who you are on your user page (not your talk page), respond below, and then the talk page of the wikipedia article can be updated accordingly. Please can I remind you to sign any posts with four tildas. I had to search the history to see who wrote the above. Thank you.
Luther Blissetts (
talk) 18:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)This article makes me stabby, but is it valid? Guy ( Help!) 20:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Regenerative agriculture is an approach to food and farming systems that regenerates topsoil and enhances biodiversity now and long into the future." is a description which would absolutely encompass crop rotation and other farming techniques (not my forte, sorry I can't think of any more examples) which have been practiced for a long, long time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I know the section for this is still open above, but I'd like to re-highlight Aquatic ape hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Currently the editors of the article include jps ( talk) going against User:MjolnirPants (who is a self-admitted advocate, albeit relatively well-behaved), as well as three pro-fringe POV-warriors, one of which just expressed willingness to edit war over the article. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
As an example, many of the critics in Langdon 1997 have now become invalid or been refuted by later publications like Bender et al., this antiqued review is still prominently cited in the article.As far as I know, Langdon published the only comprehensive review of the theory. Regardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of his critiques, his review is a prominent feature of the subject and deserves significant weight.
Meanwhile we have an article which meanders about in its description and never makes any substantive claims.I think focusing on cleaning up the Efforts made to test hypotheses section will correct that. As things sit, that section doesn't even address the heading, but instead documents attempts by the handful of proponents of this hypothesis to argue for it. I'm of the opinion that the entire section needs to go, though if we trim it down and point out some of the evidence that's been cited in the RSes as not supporting the AAH, that might make the section workable. I've already trimmed down the section describing the hypothesis, so that it is just a list of specific claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The existence of a human settlements that ate seafood along the coast is hardly evidence of "almost exclusive coastal subsistence". It's unclear to me how you can make that claim with a straight face. jps ( talk) 11:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Everyone alive today is descended from a group of people from a single region who survived this catastrophe. The southern coast of Africa would have been one of the few spots where humans could survive during this climate crisis because it harbors an abundance of shellfish and edible plants. -- Curtis Marean [24]
mitochondrial DNA variation in isolated "relict" populations in southeast Asia supports the view that there was only a single dispersal from Africa, most likely via a southern coastal route, through India and onward into southeast Asia and Australasia. -- Vincent Macaulay et al.
I could really use some help here. The work has now started to clear out the "research" section, and I'm finding a lot of issues. In particular, AAH proponents have published a variety of papers which have clear relevance to AAH, but are not always made explicit in connection. These include papers on nutrition, locomotion, and diving. Even when the claims are made explicit in connection, the problem is that there isn't a lot of analysis being done. It feels quite similar to cold fusion papers. Wikipedia right now is basically serving as a [WP:SOAP|soapbox]] for AAH by making the implicit claim that independent research is confirming AAH left and right. It doesn't help matters much that I am basically the only person editing the page who seems to be concerned about the over-reliance on primary sources like this. Help? jps ( talk) 17:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I want to draw the attention of those of you who may be able to help but may also have grown tired of all this to a recent struggle over the use of a paper published in Medical Hypotheses. This is indicative of the kind of push being had at that article. The issue here is that poor-quality sources are being preferred when they are pro-AAH but meanwhile the skeptical critiques are typically removed from the page, sometimes in direct defiance of WP:PARITY. We have people arguing on the talkpage that David Attenborough's radio show is somehow a more serious source than, for example, a blogpost written by professor of biology.
I understand that people don't like getting down in the weeds, as it were, but it is important that we do so here so that we can get to an article that can achieve some modicum of stability without being a weird paen like it was before I started working on this.
jps ( talk) 11:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Aquatic ape hypothesis/archive1.
I encourage people to add their comments there and help continue to improve the article. Assessment would be appreciated as well (currently assessed at C-class).
jps ( talk) 18:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Article on a psychic cyclist could use some work. Note that I'm taking Maxmillien de Lafayette, [25] author of over 2500 books according to his blurb on Amnazon, to RSN - we shouldn't be using UFO researchers as sources, and we use him for a load of BLPs. [26] Doug Weller talk 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Seeking Help from Life science Experts
/info/en/?search=Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis
The draft above discusses a grand problem in Biology "The species Problem"... The draft is titled 'Species Branding Hypothesis' and (as I believe) has the solution to this age old problem.
I am concern that my draft could be rejected out as belonging to "Fringe theories"... I need help from Subject Matter Experts who are Biologist dealing with Taxonomy, systematics, Evolutionary biology etc... to validate the draft and add support...
Kind regards, Joseph J.
Jayabalan.joseph ( talk) 21:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Roger D. Craig ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Minor character in the Who's Who of JFK conspiracy lore. There is insufficient material in reliable secondary sources, so what remains is a primary source, an e-mail posted on a forum (from the notorious unreliable Spartacus website, I might add), and a dead link that used to link to a collection of works by a conspiracy theorist (i.e. Penn Jones, Jr.). This appears to be a form of a coat rack onto which one can hang links to various conspiracy books, websites, and You Tube videos. Thoughts? Keep, Delete, or Redirect to something like Trial of Clay Shaw? - Location ( talk) 13:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
David Ferrie ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
If interested, see Talk:David Ferrie#RfC about the inclusion of allegations made by William Gaudet. - Location ( talk) 05:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
As is happening with British Israelism, this article seems to have a number of sources that are just minor websites and is promoting a minor group that wouldn't merit an article and may not be much more than a few people and a website for all I can tell. 13:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs)
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.
Please see Talk:Plummer_v._State#Request_for_Comment_-_Internet_meme_section where the dispute is over how to source discussion of FRINGE legal concepts. Jytdog ( talk) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.... If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.It just seems strange to me that we would set aside key standards about WP:SECONDARY just to present, talk about, and then debunk these so-called "fringe" theories, rather than simply ignore them entirely, giving them the attention they deserve: NONE. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Robert Sungenis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let's include a list of self-published books from a fringe Catholic geocentrist on his biography page, shall we? That's a reasonable thing to do, right?
I don't have the patience to deal with this ongoing nonsense.
jps ( talk) 15:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The notable works are already included in the article. There is no point in having a list. It's not okay to revert when you have no justification for the inclusion. jps ( talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
So is it or is it not true that not all of Mr Sungenis's publications (that have been reported on in RS) are not mentioned in the article? Is it also not true that we actually were (in the article) discussing one of his books but I had to (yesterday) actually add the title of that book? Thus (as of the ranching of this thread) the article did not mention (by name) all of his notable works. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The reasons why I think the Robert Sungenis Wikipedia page should have a publications/bibliography section are:
1.) He is a recognized scholar in the field of Catholic Apologetics. The following scholars from various fields (Theology, Physics, Astronomy, etc.) have endorsed his work:
Not By Faith Alone: a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Ronald K. Tecelli, S.J. c.) Dr. Robert Fastiggi d.) Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas e.) Karl Keating f.) Rev. George W. Rutler g.) Scott Hahn, Ph.D. h.) Patrick Madrid i.) Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. j.) William Marshner k.) Rev. Paul Rothermel l.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D. m.) Professor John Saward n.) Rev. Pablo Gadenz o.) Professor Philip Blosser p.) Dr. Arthur Sippo q.) Steve Ray
Not By Bread Alone: a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Reverend Mitchell Pacwa c.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D.
Not By Scripture Alone: a.) Dr. Peter Kreeft
Galileo was Wrong The Church Was Right: a.) Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D. b.) Vincent J. Schmithorst, Ph.D. c.) Gerald Benitz, M.A., Ph.D. d.) Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D. e.) E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. f.) Joseph A. Strada, Ph.D. g.) Russell T. Arndts, Ph.D. h.) Thaddeus J. Kozinski, Ph.D. i.) Martin G. Selbrede j.) John Domen, M.S. k.) John Salza
2.) Not all his writings are self-published. If self-published was really the problem, then why not only include works that are not self-published?
Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, Queenship Publishing (1996), 774 pp. ISBN 1-57918-008-6
Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Queenship Publishing (1997), 650 pp. ISBN 1-57918-055-8
How Can I Get to Heaven? The Bible's Teaching on Salvation Made Easy to Understand, Queenship Publishing (1997), 334 pp. ISBN 1-57918-007-8
Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Queenship Publishing (2000), 450 pp. ISBN 1-57918-124-4
The Gospel According to Matthew (Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, Vol. 1), Queenship Publishing (2003), 427 pp. ISBN 1-57918-236-4
The Apocalypse of St. John (Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, Vol. 2), Queenship Publishing (2007), 544 pp. ISBN 1-57918-329-8
The Consecration of Russia: How Seven Popes Failed to Heed Heaven’s Command and Brought Turmoil to the Church and the World, Hometown Publications, Inc. copyright 2013, 384 pages, ISBN 978-0-9841859-9-3.
3.) Both Slatersteven and Nomoskedasticity have made valid arguments in the Robert Sungenis Talk Page that have not been refuted. Sungenis writings have been mentioned in secondary sources. Why not mention only those writings in the publication/bibliography section if the problem really was whether or not they are mentioned in secondary sources?
4.) There is a broad consensus in Wikipedia of allowing BLPs to have Publications/Bibliography sections.
5.) Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.
Conclusion: The Robert Sungenis Wikipedia page should have a Bibliography/Publications section. Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 20:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Sungenis is a recognized scholar in the field of Catholic Apologetics. Even if you remove Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right and the scholars who endorsed it, you are still left with all these theologians and apologists who have endorsed his apologetic work:
a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Ronald K. Tecelli, S.J. c.) Dr. Robert Fastiggi d.) Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas e.) Karl Keating f.) Rev. George W. Rutler g.) Scott Hahn, Ph.D. h.) Patrick Madrid i.) Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. j.) William Marshner k.) Rev. Paul Rothermel l.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D. m.) Professor John Saward n.) Rev. Pablo Gadenz o.) Professor Philip Blosser p.) Dr. Arthur Sippo q.) Steve Ray r.) Reverend Mitchell Pacwa s.) Dr. Peter Kreeft
Sample of the Endorsements
Not By Faith Alone
Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas: “While this present work is clearly scholarly, it must be distinguished from many other efforts along these lines over the past five centuries.”
Dr. Scott Hahn: “What may come as a surprise, however, is the fact that this work represents the first book-length response by an American Catholic to Protestant attacks against the Catholic Church’s teaching on faith and justification in more than half a century — perhaps longer, since I am not familiar with a single title written in the 20th century!”
Dr. Arthur Sippo: “This book not only deals with the historic debates on the question of justification dating from the 16th century, it is also the first apologetic book to directly challenge the recent writings of Protestant critics of Catholicism such as McGrath, Sproul, Geisler, McCarthy, MacArthur, White, et al.”
Dr. Robert Fastiggi: “This study shows Robert Sungenis to be a theologian and scholar of the first rank.”
Not By Bread Alone
Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz: "Robert Sungenis has prepared a wonderful defense and explanation of the Holy Eucharist based on Sacred Scripture and Catholic theology.”
Reverend Mitchell Pacwa: “Robert Sungenis' examination of the Catholic teaching on the Mass is a careful, step by theological step understanding of a key doctrine. He gives the reader the Scripture passages and exegesis, the Patristic and the Conciliar documentation.”
Dr. Thomas Howard: "Robert Sungenis' work - all of it - fills the word "exhaustive" with fresh, and even exhilarating, significance.”
Not By Scripture Alone
Dr. Peter Kreeft: "This book is the single most important, systematic, logical, sustained, direct, multifaceted treatment of this central issue that I know of."
The End Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 04:07, 21 April 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 needs major pruning of fantasy relationships, e.g. Anne Sullivan and Helen Keller. Mangoe ( talk) 11:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
All rather moot as it has been deleted. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow. This is really bad even by the generally poor standard we see for most Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory articles. Hopelessly POV and PROFRINGE. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The problems I mentioned above concerning British Israelism are spreading. New edits to Ten Lost Tribes, removal of Ten Lost Tribes and British Israelism from Pseudohistory. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Complaint on the talk page that this article is negative. Doug Weller talk 04:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the majority of the article should neutrally describe what BI is and what it's proponents believe... but it should not do so in a way that makes the reader think it is accepted by a significant number of people. The reader needs to understand that it is widely rejected by historians, and is a fringe pseudohistorical concept. Blueboar ( talk) 00:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Possible COI editor @ Brainwavescience: has recently added material [31] [32] similar to that removed previously, sourcing much to newspaper articles and to a primary journal article authored by disclosed COI editor Neuroscientist1. Rather than edit war, I bring the matter here for consideration. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I have attempted to clear this article up, this user Impersonal1914 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since February 2016, has been using the article to massively promote a fringe organisation called suncenter.org. As above any eyes welcome. He/she will probably attempt to revert when they next log in. 81.154.213.104 ( talk) 17:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Brian D. Litman ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
In my ongoing search for fringe sources, I was led to this article. I am wondering if someone else could take a look at it, particular the section on Brian D. Litman#KGB Archive Release on Kennedy Assassin, as it appears to be one of those article built upon questionable sources (e.g. many cites to qontinuum.org, wildernessofmirrors.org), fringe sources about JFK (e.g. James W. Douglass, jfklancer.com), and primary sources (e.g. Warren Commission documents). The subject likely has enough coverage to meet our standards of notability, but it seems a bit of a stretch to allow some of these sources. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 13:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
There is an on going problem with this user Jonparkyn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Jenny Cockell article pushing fringe views and deleting skeptical sources. The user is repeatedly altering and removing Joe Nickell as a source from the article, describing Nickell as writing "lies" and inserting a pro-fringe view about reincarnation sourced to Cockell's own book but no page numbers given. Would appreciate if anyone could add this article to their watch-list. This is a slow on-going problem by a single purpose account. 81.154.213.104 ( talk) 16:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Jenny Cockell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a problem with the use of Joe Nickell's Sceptic responses. Because he didn't use the facts, but derived his answers from possibly a third party source that was profoundly inaccurate, his comments reproduced on this page are potentially libellous.
I've become concerned about the contributions of a user. User:Velars ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been adding content to House of Frankopan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages, stating that the house is current and that previous edits were "inaccurate and libelous", although the new Frankopans have no relation to the old house. There was a discussion about this some time ago, but no one seems to be watching the page. I'm unsure what to do or where to post it.-- Auric talk 16:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Is this something well accepted in the academia?-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:30, 28 April 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.
Of Pandas and People ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's another discussion about describing ID as pseudoscience in the lead, this time in Talk:Of Pandas and People rather than in the core intelligent design article, where such discussions take place with some regularity. Because of this, it has not attracted enough eyes so far. Anyone care to chime in? — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 18:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Operação Prato ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So credulous. So sensationalized. So poorly sourced.
jps ( talk) 17:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Commons:File:ChristianityBranches.svg
I'm not very active on Commons (I don't even know whether those folks have an FTN) and know absolutely nothing about image editing (to the point where, when it comes up at work, I usually use MS Paint), but it seemed not inappropriate to bring this up here.
"Early Christianity" is not actually a thing. There were a bunch of different Christianities since the very beginning. Jesus was one person who probably taught a fairly internally consistent but not all-encompassing interpretation of the Judaism of his day, but at no point was there a group of people calling themselves "Christians" who all held the same belief system, and modern scholars don't call that belief system "Early Christianity". Ctrl+F this page for "Christianities" or "anachronistic" for a (very) basic explanation. I seem to recall another lecture (by John P. Meier) on Yale Divinity School's YouTube channel that briefly addressed the likely origins of some of these divisions by attributing them to the not all-encompassing nature of Jesus's teachings, but I forget which one and don't have a transcript on hand.
I know that this was probably an accident, since it's impossible to construct a diagram that accurately represents different "branches" of early Christianity, and it would be beside the point, so they just had a single brown bar on the left for convenience's sake, and someone decided to give it a label that seemed appropriate to them, without thinking about it very deeply. But does anyone else think that just removing the words "Early Christianity" would be a good idea? It's obvious from the dates that the diagram is chronological, so it's not really necessary to have a label.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
[i]n Early Christianity, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church were one. Whether this was a good-faith misunderstanding on the part of whoever wrote that is really beside the point, although FWIW very few people could put together this diagram without knowing that "[i]n Early Christianity, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church were one" is seen by most scholars as a very anachronistic claim.
It's anachronistic in the first century to even talk about "Christianity" as one thing, because as we'll show, there were different views of Jesus, there were different views of the Jewish law.[33]
Early Christianity was a kaleidoscope of sects and ideas that make modern Christianity seem like a monolith despite divisions between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians.[34]
Maybe work on fixing Early Christianity before fixing the image? jps ( talk) 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Depends on what you're using the diagram for. Of course, the diagram is from the perspective of Western Christendom and doesn't include modern innovations past the Protestant Reformation and it implies that Early Christianity is everything before the Great Schism which is, of course, a POV that many do not share. These, however, are editorial points that don't speak to the purpose of the image which is to get a sense of the order when various Christian sects split from each other and from whom. Sure, to not center it on Eastern Churches is obviously biased, but that is not really a "fringe theory". jps ( talk) 12:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Words fail me. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The part "Animals can help reduce blood pressure, cholesterol, triglyceride and feelings of loneliness.[3]" appears to be a SYN violation or it is unrelated to the page. It does not mention yoga or goats. QuackGuru ( talk) 12:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is nominally about the abdomen in Japanese martial arts and traditional medicine, but it meanders readily into all sorts of tangential and pro-fringe stuff and has never really gotten any attention because it's nearly an orphan (6 articles link to it). Seems to be in this noticeboard's wheelhouse. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Charles B. Moore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please put this article (and others like it) on your watchlist to prevent such degradations in the future. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion there at [35] about whether and how the political conspiracy theories regarding the murder of Seth Rich should be covered in the article. Should they be described at all, or is that merely a pro-fringe insinuation? Is it adequate to call the conspiracy theories what they are without using some of the more colorful (and arguably less encyclopedic) qualifiers some sources use to describe them (eg, "right wing", "baseless", "far-fetched"...)? Editors that are experienced with Fringe subjects should have a look and comment. 20:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This article describes a theory used in the animal rights movement. It is not a mainstream view in food psychology or sociology. I think the article does a fine job of describing carnism, but I feel it needs contextualising that this is animal rights theorists talking to other animal rights theorists. The problem is that no one else talks about carnism: I've not found any literature from other viewpoints. However, that may just be that I've not spent much time on this! So, I thought this would be an appropriate place to seek input on how to depict a minority theory. (I did suggest a change to the lede, but another editor felt my citations were insufficient, probably fairly.) Bondegezou ( talk) 16:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was updated last month.
It has some excellent points that may help us in many of our articles on the subject (and those subjects that have been labeled as) pseudoscience.
jps ( talk) 00:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This BLP has gone through a long series of back-and-forth editing instigated by a paid editor. There were some direct statements that mentioned she is a "promoter of pseudoscience" that were recently removed from the lede and sorta worked into the line about alternative medicine and fad diets. More eyes on this article are needed to make sure the fringe issues are adequately addressed. Perhaps some of the editors from the BLP noticeboard are less aware of the vulnerability of such an article to PRO:FRINGE. Delta13C ( talk) 06:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be fringe, ie pseudoscience. [36] [37] [38] As it stands the article says it's disputed but also describes it in Wikipedia's voice as though it's a real syndrome, which it isn't. We all have false memories. See for instance the work of Julia Shaw (psychologist), whose book I've just finished - anyone interested in the subject of memory needs to read it. an article by her Doug Weller talk 09:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Doug, with all due respect, the edit comment of your statement above [41] (" 'False Memory Syndrome' is best characterized as a pseudoscientific syndrome that was developed to defend against claims of child abuse") shows your bias. Yes some abusers use this as a defense, but there are legitimate cases where the following happens:
Source: Chris French, a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London, where he heads the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, writing for The Guardian. [42]
This is a delicate situation. On the one hand, there is no doubt that some legitimate sexual abusers of children use this as a defense. But there is also no doubt that some innocent people are accused. The answer is neither to blindly accept or blindly reject claim of childhood sexual abuse but rather to seek collaborating evidence.
Related: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Political decoy#RfC about the inclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 17:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The section William Happer#Views is in need of some serious attention -- it consists primarily of a long list of quotes from the subject's publications, without the accompanying context that the quoted statements are rejected by the scientific community, false, misleading, or some combination thereof. (One lovely paragraph observes that criticisms exist, without mentioning what they are; others use sources that perform critical analysis only to support the existence of false claims and not to evaluate them.) -- JBL ( talk) 19:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
While no one is actively editing the article at the moment, the discussion on the article talk page has expanded. It would be nice if a few other editors would weigh in on which of the two versions ( old new) is more appropriate. (And also perhaps to further improve the section, which is still in need of work!) -- JBL ( talk) 20:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Dowsing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP has added quite a lot of content to this article in the past couple of days. At first glance the edits look pretty legit, but I only had time for a first glance, and will give it a better look this evening. Extra eyes appreciated. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 23:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The Koren Specific Technique article is virtually duplicate content of Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Koren_Specific_Technique. I don't see a reason for a stand alone article. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Karyn Kupcinet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For those of you who have been involved in trimming the conspiracy stuff in Dorothy Kilgallen (@ Ad Orientem, Cullen328, LuckyLouie, and JzG:), the same editor appears to be having a go at Karyn Kupcinet. - Location ( talk) 02:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Jason Martell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Questionable sources in an article about a paranormal researcher. See also the decade old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Martell. - Location ( talk) 03:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
B. Alan Wallace ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While the article is about a relatively minor figure, there has been steady trickle of editors periodically showing up to make unambiguously WP:PROFRINGE edits, most recently one with an apparent COI making edits from an IP at the institution where the article subject resides.
I have no idea how I first became involved with the article, and really I wish it could be deleted, but apparently that's been tried before.
No urgent attention is needed, but it'd be nice if some of y'all could add it to your watchlist. Manul ~ talk 13:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention this here after reading this] over at the Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame. The problem with stuff like this is of course the lack of reliable sources, few if any archaeologists or geologists are going to waste their time over something like this. It is a genuine archaeological site, but not nearly as old as claimed. [56] Nor surprisingly it has government support. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Apologies if this is a repeat, but I could not find it in the archives. Readers of this noticeboard will no doubt be interested in an article titled WikiTweaks: The Encyclopaedia that Anyone (Who is a Skeptic) Can Edit by Mel Hopper Koppelman in the Journal of Chinese Medicine from February. (A full text PDF is available there, it's only 5 pages). It seems to document problems the author points out in trying to update our article. A friend of mine dug around in the archives of the Acupuncture page, and near as they can tell (and assuming they identified the right account) this person never actually tried to edit the article itself, they just got into fights on the talk page and got themselves banned without actually doing any editing. It amazes me how often that happens. -- Krelnik ( talk) 18:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
it shows that editors have determined what the article should say and searched for sources to support what they want to includeActually, doing exactly that produces much better results so I think your argument fails here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Tedd Koren ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I propose the article be nominated for deletion. QuackGuru ( talk) 14:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
IPs adding Sitchin nonsense. Doug Weller talk 21:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The problems with this article are ongoing. There have been blocks and TBANs, and now that some of the blocks have expired it's getting POV-ish again. More eyes would be appreciated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. [1]
References