This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This articles puts forward the fringe theory that a miraculous event happened, and underrepresents the scientific consensus that there are non-paranormal explanation to this event.
Attempts to change this have been met with disruptive edits and edit warring from several users. The article needs to be changed significantly to belong in an encyclopedia.
The parent article Our Lady of Fátima as the same issues. KarlPoppery ( talk) 20:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Miracle of the Sun now seems fairly balanced and clear. Our Lady of Fátima may still need some cleanup. KarlPoppery ( talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I added the material to the all important lede to provide a summary of the non-religious POV already presented in the article. Have had to fight to keep it there. (Rp2006) 107.77.216.152 ( talk) 19:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to see, recent additions to the lead put undue weight on pseudoscientific explanations, bringing the article into WP:FRINGE territory. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Now, a persistent campaign by a Christian activist blogger editor who argues it's "censorship" for the article not to give the beliefs of "Catholics who are scientists" equal weight with the scientific mainstream. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Watergate scandal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see Talk:Watergate scandal/Archive 1#Conspiracy theory content. An observant IP noted that recent changes are cited to Ashton Gray's book that states that the Watergate burglars were attempting to distract from the kidnapping of L. Ron Hubbard as well as Jim Hougan's book which has been described by The New York Times as "Watergate revisionism". - Location ( talk) 22:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Just gonna leave this here. Seems...odd on it's face, but not sure what to do with it. TimothyJosephWood 14:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
On the Loch Ness monster article is a couple of extreme fringe views about the Surgeon's photograph. One reads as follows "The hoax story is disputed by Henry Bauer, who claims that the debunking is evidence of bias and asks why the perpetrators did not reveal their plot earlier to embarrass the newspaper.[41] According to Alastair Boyd, a researcher who uncovered the hoax, the Loch Ness Monster is real; the surgeon's photo hoax does not mean that other photos, eyewitness reports, and footage of the creature are also, and he claims to have seen it."
I really do not think Henry H. Bauer should be cited on the article. He is unreliable. Below Bauer, Tim Dinsdale is quoted as disputing the hoax photograph. Problem is, Dinsdale was writing a long time ago. It is pretty much accepted now by almost everyone that the surgeon photograph is a fake. I think these fringe viewpoints should be removed? Anyone else agree? I have a big foot ( talk) 14:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This article has just been created. It claims to not be about Applied Kinesiology, but what I see described really looks like Applied Kinesiology, unless I'm missing something... It claims that the technique has been shown efficient to identify truths from lies. That's a pretty blunt statement to make. It's probably based on this study done on 48 people. I don't think the study is enough to claim with confidence that a new lie detector has been found. Please keep an eye on the article. KarlPoppery ( talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Move request: /info/en/?search=Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Requested_move_19_May_2017
I think there are some Fridge Theory issues involved in the requested move and I would encourage you to visit the page and take part in the discussion. Casprings ( talk) 22:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Newly landed, and at first glance has some issues, like asserting in Wikipedia's voice that astral sight happens, and discussing "possible applications". Alexbrn ( talk) 07:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
In the article, this plant is described as quite a panacea : "The corm is prescribed for bronchitis, asthma, abdominal pain, emesis, dysentery, enlargement of spleen, piles, elephantiasis, diseases due to vitiated blood, and rheumatic swellings." The main source for these claims is behind a paywall. A quick search on Pubmed does give a few results. Does anyone here feel competent to evaluate the claims in this article? KarlPoppery ( talk) 08:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
User:ApLundell raised a question about this at RSN which I think is more relevant here. A source that doesn't seem to be used in our article is the 2016 publication of a facsimile by Yale including some scholarly essays. This New Yorker article gives a glimpse into what some of these say. An Amazon.Com review says the book has "six chapters dedicated to the history of the manuscript and the attempts that have been made to decipher it. While these chapters contain little new information, they are well researched, and cover what can be known about the manuscript without straying into the realm of unprovable hypothesis." So definitely, these would be excellent sources and perhaps give us guidance as to what should be included in our article. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
J. D. Tippit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
J. D. Tippit#Conspiracy theories contains a number of citations to the primary sources of JFK conspiracy theories (i.e. Jim Marrs, James W. Douglass, Kenn Thomas, and Sterling Haywood). Per various policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:REDFLAG), I thought these types of theories were only to be reported on to the extent they are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. Thoughts? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 13:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
More eyes on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories would be greatly appreciated - there has been a spate of fringe promotion recently from at least two users.
One user, Chippy55 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has introduced unsourced fringe-promotional text.
A second user - Gosale ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - did a mass PROFRINGE edit throughout the whole article, then another edit to downplay the antisemitic nature of various conspiracy claims advanced by Iranian media. Gosale also did the same thing in 2015 ( example), so I'm concerned about the pattern.
More eyeballs would be greatly appreciated. Neutrality talk 22:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It is slander because the information added to this article is emotionally motivated.
The goal of the editor is to provide a label to TV station. the TV station already have a an article and in that article all labels can be provided.
In the article "Sandy Hook..." the TV station publishes an article that is produced by someone else, why do the editor feel the need to label the TV station as anti semitic in this article. Surly the editor would not accept that every news source that publishes other people articles to be labelled in every wiki article that news agency is mentioned.
This is clearly a effort to include the foul label "anti-Semitic" in a effort to slander that organ.
I suggest we respect the articles main function and provide facts and allow the labelling of people and organizations for other articles.
Have in mind that there are many sources out there, video and audio sources that shows that not only are, press TV ant the Iranian government members including the supreme leader, not anti Semitics but in reality they hailing the Jewish people and the Jewish faith on MANY points in time. BUT this is not the place to argue the fact that a tv station is worthy of a label.
I would love to read your thinking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosale ( talk • contribs)
The aliens are at it again. Apparently, so it is alleged, they've set up their Dyson shell to act like a beacon, possibly including mirrored surfaces. But more discipline needs to applied to the sourcing. There are some there that are working as a direct link from blogs, Twitter, and various expert email discussion lists straight into the article. Used to be (last time this was in the news) we'd wait for peer review instead of collecting primary sources. Geogene ( talk) 00:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Remote viewing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Related to the above discussion on Watergate scandal, I noticed Ashton Gray has a couple of citations in Remote viewing. My suggestion is to revert the recent changes, however, I'm developing a strong bias against this source so I think someone else should check on it, too. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 15:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Rapa Nui people ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Inappropriate original research and WP:FRINGE material was removed from History of Easter Island . [4] However, similar text is included in the article on the people. I think what is happening here is that the fringe theory that there was contact between South America and Easter Island is getting more play on Wikipedia than in the WP:MAINSTREAM literature and while I see that obscure journals have published extremely speculative claims about all this, it is absolutely the case that there is no evidence that Rapa Nui culture is at all connected to South American indigenous culture (Rapa Nui traditional culture is 100% Polynesian according to all mainstream accounts I have been able to find). Can we get some help with this issue?
jps ( talk) 16:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/epic-pre-columbian-voyage-suggested-genes Slatersteven ( talk) 08:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Whether Polynesians reached the Americas and admixed with Native Americans during their eastward expansion that ended about 1 kyr ago remains controversial. A genetic study of ancient chicken remains from South America supports this scenario but has also been questioned. Genome sequencing of the remains of humans from Brazil that date to around AD1650, and therefore pre-date the recorded trade of Polynesian slaves to South America, shows that the individuals are closely related to contemporary Polynesians. These data potentially provide further support for early contact between Polynesians and Native Americans but they could also be the result of the European-mediated transportation of people. More convincing are the results of a genome-wide study of the modern-day inhabitants of Easter Island, which provided statistical support for Native American admixture that can be dated to 1280–1495, several hundred years before Europeans reached the islands in 1722. However, only evidence of Polynesian and Native American admixture in human remains that pre-date colonization in the Americas would settle the debate.( source)
Okay, are we talking past each other? These are the points I would like to see in the article: (1) some wonder whether the Rapa Nui traveled back-and-forth to South America, (2) there are genetic markers of Europeans and Amerindians in their modern genome, (3) it is controversial to assert pre-eighteenth century contact, but there are researchers who are currently making this claim on the basis of genetic evidence, sweet potatoes, and chickens. I think, however, that this shouldn't be the defining feature of the history of the people, though, and focusing on this controversy in the discussion of their history without mentioning their connection to Polynesia prominently is what I think may be WP:UNDUE. jps ( talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I am reading a book on Rapa Nui right now which is why I noticed the issue in the first place. I think a Google Scholar search of the history of the island itself can be useful for this. I don't find your text particularly objectionable -- only that it was all that was written and so it gave a sensation that this was the only important aspect of this well-studied history. jps ( talk) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I cannot remember all the different pages on the creation-evolution controversy which reference public opinions on evolution, but they probably need updating.
jps ( talk) 18:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This AFD [10] may be of interest, since the main keep argument is a probably fictional thing may still be notable as some people believe in it. My personal take is that it dies not meet WP:GNG in any case, though the article creator is insistent that getting mentioned in congress confers notability. Artw ( talk) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It's also got about twice the amount of words in a quote than we normally allow, but I haven't trimmed it yet. Parts of it have been added to Younger Dryas impact hypothesis and Göbekli Tepe (where the talk page discussion concluded that the research was too new to use, as well as by unqualified people, ie a Chemical engineers Professor and his student). See Talk:Göbekli Tepe#Sweatman and Tsikritsis 2017
The concept itself is mentioned in Impact winter, C. Leroy Ellenberger, William Napier (astronomer) and Victor Clube. The bulk of the main article is the huge quote from Sweatman and Tsikritis whose research mainly owes homage to Graham Hancock and Andrew Collins. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Coherent catastrophism should most definitely not be classed as fringe. It is accepted as mainstream in astronomy. Indeed, physically, it is simply stating the obvious - when a giant comet breaks up in the inner solar system the earth can be expected to experience increased risk of bombardment. It's a no brainer, and no academic would dispute it. What they might, and have, disputed are the catastrophic consequences of the Taurid meteor stream specifically, which corresponds to the very latest period of coherent catastrophism according to Clube and Napier and their colleagues. Again, this is not really disputed, as much as debated, within the current astronomical literature. Yes, the concept is mentioned very briefly elsewhere, but it is not explained. An explanation is necessary for other wiki pages (Gobekli Tepe, Younger Dryas etc). Your edits are over-cautious and biased.
Regarding the Sweatman and Tsikritsis paper - it is not relevant that they are engineers. Where does it say that engineers can't contribute to other research fields in the WIki Rules? What matters is where the article is published. It is published in a mainstream archaeological journal whose editor is highly respected in the field. It has been peer-reviewed by archaeologists (three, actually, if you care to read the paper). There is no reason to censor this.
You are quite right the quote is too long. I will correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystifiedCitizen ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Folks who have this board watchlisted may want to take a look at the recent editing at Adelle Davis, which has included using alt med practitioner/advocates as sources for material there. Yobol ( talk) 23:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:List of fake news websites there is a vigorous discussion about whether we should list things like blogs that promote conspiracy theories as "fake news sites" or whether that designation should be reserved for websites that attempt to fool the reader into thinking that they are legitimate news sites. Your input would be most appreciated. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is about the Autism Research Institute, an organization that used to promote the pseudoscientific belief that vaccines cause autism, but no longer does.
Two years ago, the article underwent a major rewrite by CorporateM ( talk · contribs), who has disclosed a conflict of interest. The draft was approved by admin Crisco 1492 ( talk · contribs), who may have acted a bit too quickly on this occasion.
The "new" and current version of this article is problematic. The article is a spin intended to convince it's reader that the organization has been completely transformed in a few years. But the main problem is that the writer removed any mention that the view the company still promotes, which is that nutrition and "toxins" cause autism, is also not supported by mainstream science. This was said clearly in the January 2015 version, but was removed in the corporate version of the article.
A Quackwatch article gives a more complete story about the organization, for those interested.
What I suggest, if this gains consensus, is that we start by reverting to the January 2015 version of the artice, and move on from there. KarlPoppery ( talk) 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Bob Lazar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For those who take on ET, there is a minor edit war in a UFO-related article. - Location ( talk) 02:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The article European medieval magic opens with "This article will discuss...". Groan. Then at times it wanders into ambiguous, borderline-in-universe tone, about demons, or elves, and "those who practiced it put themselves at risk of physical and spiritual assault from the demons they sought to control".
I'm sorry I can't even think about taking on this page. But I figured someone(s) here would probably be motivated to do some work on it. Alsee ( talk) 00:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
James B. Adams (professor) is about a ASU professor who's also an Anti-Vaxer [1], but that's not clearly indicated and the article makes problematic claims. I'd need help on this one, not sure how to navigate between WP:PSCI and WP:BLP. KarlPoppery ( talk) 18:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Tengri#See_also currently has a link to the word Dingir, claiming that the two words might be linked. The pseudolingustic connection between the Sumerian and Turkish languages is a belief that Turkish nationalists have been trying to push for years ( [11], [12], [13]).
Since the article is currently semi-ed (Thanks to those same nationalists), I can't remove the link. Would someone mind? 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 17:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a thread at Talk:Conversion therapy#"not discussed" revert regarding the best way to characterize conversion therapy in the lead. Seeking input. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I've just deleted a bit of copyvio from a section discussing Lucio Russo. Of what's left, some is sourced to a paper here in Italian reviewing Russo. I decided to translate the conclusion. This bit:
"Tuttavia, io sono convinto che i navigatori fenici possano essere arrivati sulle isole americane e forse anche sulle coste continentali. Non vi è motivo di dubitarne, le prove e le evidenze culturali, biologiche e archeologiche, molto ben presentate da Russo nella prima parte del libro, potrebbero già quasi provarlo e in futuro potrebbero anche moltiplicarsi fino a raggiungere quella massa critica che consenta di modificare lo scenario. Al contempo, sono assolutamente certo che la dimostrazione di Lucio Russo sul rimpicciolimento del mondo operato da Tolomeo e sul primo meridiano che passa per le Piccole Antille sia infondata, tecnicamente e filologicamente scorretta, nonché viziata da evidenti forzature e interpretazioni ad hoc, evitando accuratamente altre ipotesi, nemmeno menzionate. Un libro interessante che vale la pena di leggere con le dovute accortezze: il lettore disarmato potrebbe prendere per buono ciò che non è in grado di valutare o di comprendere, e l’autore ha per questo una grande responsabilità: quella di non essere riuscito a fornire al lettore gli strumenti necessari per il formarsi di un proprio giudizio critico."
which interestingly enough as the editor who added the source somehow forgot to mention it, translates as:
"However, I am convinced that Phoenician sailors can be reached on the American islands and perhaps even on the continental coasts. There is no reason to doubt it, the evidence and cultural, biological and archaeological evidence, well presented by Russians in the first part of the book, could almost prove it and in the future could also multiply to reach that critical mass that would scenario. At the same time, I am absolutely certain that Lucio Russo's demonstration of the world's plethora of Ptolemy's work and of the first meridian that passes on the Little Antilles is unfounded, technically and philologically incorrect, and is spoiled by obvious forcing and ad hoc interpretations, Hypothesis, not even mentioned. An interesting book that is worth reading with due diligence: the disarmed reader might take for good what he is unable to evaluate or understand, and The author has a big one for that Responsibility: that of not being able to provide the reader with the tools necessary for the formation of his own critical judgment."
It seems to me that some of this should be added to the section but I'm struggling with bits of the translation, esp. the "world's plethora" bit. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. Here it is my little help, as requested by Doug Weller: "However, I am convinced that Phoenician sailors COULD HAVE ARRIVED on the American islands and perhaps even on the continental coasts. There is no reason to doubt it, the PROOFS and cultural EVIDENCES, biological and archaeological, VERY well presented by RUSSO in the first part of the book, could ALREADY almost prove it and in the future could also multiply (THEMSELVES) UNTIL REACHING that critical mass that would ALLOW TO MODIFY THE scenario. At the same time, I am absolutely certain that Lucio Russo's demonstration ABOUT THE SHRINKING of the world DONE by Ptolomy and ABOUT the first meridian that passes on the Little Antilles is unfounded, technically and philologically incorrect, FURTHERMORE is spoiled by obvious forcing and ad hoc interpretations, BYPASSING CAREFULLY hypothesis, not even mentioned. An interesting book that is worth reading with due PRECAUTIONS: the disarmed reader might take for good what he is unable to evaluate or understand, and the author has BECAUSE OF THIS (REASON) A HUGE responsibility: that of not being able to provide the reader with the tools necessary for the formation of his own critical judgment." In capital letters are my additions. Regards, -- N591real ( talk) 19:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Following recent deletion, this article has reappeared. There is some dispute about the choice of sourcing and extent of its use within a WP:FRINGE context. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
See this edit Elio Cadelo believes the Romans visited American 500 years before Columbus, and that they were latecomers! The Italian Amazon site [14] says "The Romans visited America 1500 years before Columbus. Historical records leave no doubt: in imperial Rome was in possession of scientific knowledge, astronomical, nautical and geographical necessary to cross the Atlantic and arrive in the New World. The Latin texts speak of new lands to the west while numerous artifacts on display in the Italian and European museums prove that between the two sides of the Atlantic there were exchanges. The Romans were great navigators: east trading with India, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and their explorations led them to the Pacific islands and beyond. To the north they reached the Orkney Islands, Iceland, Greenland and perhaps along that route, they came over. In Africa, the presence of Roma is evidenced by numerous artefacts found both on the West Coast and on the East. II guide to these trips is in the writings of Pliny, Ptolemy, Herodotus, Seneca, Diodoro Siculo, Plutarch, Tacitus, Virgil and many other Greek and Latin authors. Roman sailors had technical and scientific skills such as to calculate the latitude and longitude and geographical knowledge were far superior to those of the sailors of the Middle Ages. The Romans were neither the first nor the only ones to arrive in the New World before Christopher Columbus: genetics, archeology and literature prove that Polynesians, Indians, Chinese, Phoenicians, Carthaginians and many other ancient peoples landed in America." He's an Italian Barry Fell. The website [15] User:N591real points to in their edit summary describes him as "Journalist, graduated in political Science, editor and special correspondent of the Giornale Radio Rai for Science and Environment. He worked on the "Corriere della Sera", in "The Morning," was co-worker of "Panorama", "Science Two thousand", "Period." Author and co-author of numerous publications such as: Seven Nobel for later(Teknos), The Mental Unemployment in Naples (Longo), a rituala devil, two cultures(History and Popular Medicine); has cared for Marsilio Editore Idea ofNature, 13 scientists are confronted. He received for the dissemination and scientific information and, in 2007 ENEA 1999 Prize, the Premio Giovanni Maria Pace for Science, he was a member of the Working Group on Information and communicat..." No way is this a reliable source. I'm of for the day for a foodie festival soon. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
::::Sincerely I only added some information about "another pineapple". I don't want to promote any "fringe theory"! I think that Elio Cadelo is a famous journalist in Italy (of the RAI, the official Italian Radio-TV institution: he is "Scrittore, Caporedattore giornale radio Rai per la scienza e l'ambiente") who is well accepted & judged in historian circles of Italy. So, for me he is a "Reliable source for claims of other pineapples: Elio Cadelo has won the Premio ENEA 1999 (please read
https://www.ibs.it/libri/autori/Elio%20Cadelo", as I wrote). Here it is a video where Cadelo comments his book about the Romans in America in the "Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici e Geografici":
[16]. It is in Italian, but I can give a translation if requested. Anyway, I just wanted to add this information...and nothing else....(but allow me to add that the pineapple shown in the hands of the roman kid inside the Geneva museum (see
http://www.lsdmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/resizephp.jpg and that was quickly made disappear by Doug Weller) has no round "grapes" near his hand like the wine-grape fruit, but "rectangular pieces" that looks astonishingly similar to this photo of an ananas:
https://avatanplus.com/files/resources/mid/573ecbf4cac11154cd4cb45e.png
). And we know that ananas is a fruit that can survive many weeks of travel, with only the loss of the green leaves....So, I think this Wikipedia article must add evidences like these pineapples and not only evidences about "Claims involving California canoes" & "Claims involving chickens". Regards to all of you.--
N591real (
talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
:Allow me to remember that this article is about theories and not facts....nearly half the theories in this article are not based on facts! Why all this problem? Sincerely I cannot understand why there it is no problem about "Claims involving chickens" but there it is such comments about the Roman possible presence in America?--
N591real (
talk) 15:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
:::So, in your opinion what is in the hands of the roman kid? At this point I like to leave all this mess. All this attacks -that is what I feel, sincerely- are on a simple refusal to allow that something roman can have reached America, but if it is Phoenician or Chinese or Polynesian....well that's acceptable. This reminds me the discussion (on academic circles, of course) about the latin word "perdomita", related to the fact that Britain -according to Tacitus who wrote "Britannia perdomita, sed olim missa est" (Britain was totally conquered but quickly was lost)- was fully conquered by the roman Agricola. As you probably know the british circles of historians linked to the "glory" of the British empire cannot accept that the word perdomita is made in latin from the words "PERfecta DOMInaTA" (meaning 'completely dominated' in classical latin) and so they deny the total conquest of Britain by Agricola. So, as written before, I like to leave all this mess & these attacks: I semi-retire from Wikipedia. --
N591real (
talk) 17:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
So some users and admin Doug Weller have obtained to impose what they wanted. Congratulations....But at the end nobody has answered my question: in your opinion what is in the hands of the roman kid in the Geneva museum?......obviously it can be ONLY an ananas from America! My last four cents with the same words of Galileo to the abuses of the Inquisition: EPPUR SI MUOVE....and at the end all of us admit that he was right!. So, in a similar way I am sure soon or later the truth about these pineapples in roman hands will come out.--
N591real (
talk) 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Nemetope, for your support and comments (and also for erasing the "childish vandalism"). I am glad that you have personally seen the small statue with the roman kid in the Geneva museum and find that the roman boy has in his hand a pineapple. And thanks to Slatersteven for writing that "we should also treat other users with respect, not ridicule"....I am sure soon or later the truth about these pineapples in roman hands will come out, even in Wikipedia! Thanks again.--
N591real (
talk) 13:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your thanks, N591real....I have seen personally the small statue of the roman boy I am totally sure it is an ananas, because of the pineapple rectangular pieces near the kid hand that cannot be dimples grapes but only pieces of leaves in the first stages of decomposition (probably this fruit was many weeks old). Here it is an image that shows the leaves falling: the first line of leaves covers the top of the ananas "dimples" (
[20]). I also remember the ananas of the Geneva museum was very similar to those imported from Puerto Rico: it is a species of pineapple imported in Switzerland. Finally I want to pinpoint that I agree with the above proposal of Gamall Wednesday Ida. --
Nemetope (
talk) 15:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
:::::Sincerely, I don't care of all this discussion about proposal. I only found another image that is similar to the ananas in the roman boy hand: (
[21]) and has leaves falling and covering the top of the ananas. For me (I repeat) there it no doubt at all, after having seen the small statue: it is a pineapple similar to the Puerto Rico species called often "Red Spanish". And I want to pinpoint that the person who wrote the book is a serious researcher who has been officially awarded, not a college student promoting OR.--
Nemetope (
talk) 16:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Michael Connell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is the left's version of Murder of Seth Rich. I saw a notice in WP:RSN about one of the sources, however, I think a second look should be taken at all of the sourcing. - Location ( talk) 14:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Steve Huff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bio of a guy who invented a box to talk to ghosts is heavy on pseudoscience and light nil on reliable independent sources. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 23:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Huff. jps ( talk) 10:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it me, or does this seem like a POV fork, especially given the title ("Darwinism"?). -- Calton | Talk 00:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
That is an excellent point. By making the page devoted exclusively to "alternatives", much of the history gets left out. There should be some editorial reason for doing this. If, for example, the history of evolutionary thought was too unwieldy. We spun out non-standard cosmology just so that our page on physical cosmology would not get bogged down. In any case, renaming with something like "alternatives" in the title still to me smacks of WP:GEVAL. jps ( talk) 12:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, the subject of the article is "theories of evolution, except the one about natural selection (but it is not really excepted because the article mentions it throughout, and it is one of the rows in the table)". So, how about adding one short paragraph linking to natural selection, then calling it Theories of evolution? That page is a redirect to Evolution now.
Also, why not sort the ideas chronologically? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 22:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
If you can't trust Burl Ives, who can you trust?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It gets better: "Monroe had had phone coversations with reporter Dorothy Kilgallen, who was looking into the famous Roswell incident."
Dorothy Kilgallen (d. 1965) was a celebrated journalist, whose column covered the topics of show business, politics, and organized crime. Since when is Roswell remotely connected to these topics?
Her article does not mention it, but there are conspiracy theories about Kilgallen's own death. That the "accidental" drug death was not accidental, but a poisoning case. Which unfortunately is her main claim to fame nowadays. Dimadick ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, there is currently a deletion discussion regarding this creationist dinosaur museum at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum Agricolae ( talk) 18:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
There is some peculiar language in this article: "The museum promotes the belief that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time"
This belief is quite true from a phylogenetic perspective. The birds have been reclassified as dinosaurs. Quoting our own article on the subject:
Not only are humans co-existing with dinosaurs under this definition. Companies such as KFC ensure that we are using some dinosaurs for food. Dimadick ( talk) 19:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You removed a statement about avian dinosaurs, without removing or addressing the scientific definition of dinosaur. I do not think you are familiar with "fringe" if you find the phylogenetic tree to be fringe science. Dimadick ( talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about phylogeny, not taxonomy. Taxonomy often classifies organisms based on outdated ideas from the 18th century. Fish are no longer considered a valid grouping, as explained in our article on them: "Tetrapods emerged within lobe-finned fishes, so cladistically they are fish as well. However, traditionally fish are rendered obsolete or paraphyletic by excluding the tetrapods (i.e., the amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals which all descended from within the same ancestry). Because in this manner the term "fish" is defined negatively as a paraphyletic group, it is not considered a formal taxonomic grouping in systematic biology. The traditional term pisces (also ichthyes) is considered a typological, but not a phylogenetic classification." Dimadick ( talk) 21:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wCFIJ-XnRY
Yes, I know that this one is a video, but trust me, it is worth it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Finland doesn't exist. [23] Doug Weller talk 11:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Serious question Yes, I'm aware this is not a forum, but I must ask: Are the authors of stuff like the black helicopter ridiculousness serious, or just yanking our collective carrot? Are there really people out there, armed with fly swatters and wearing aluminum foil deflector beanies, stalking tiny black helicopters? Or is this in the category of the Man Will Never Fly Society (motto: Birds Fly, Men Drink) -- people with a sense of humor, having a good time? Until last November I was certain that the black helicopter/hollow moon/chemtrail people couldn't possibly expect any rational human to believe any of this stuff -- and then Trump somehow convinced 80 million people to vote for him, so I just don't know anymore. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 13:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
On the ultra-crazy fringe, it gets more complicated—a lot of things start off as hoaxes but get taken up by people who genuinely believe them. (I can provide numerous reliable sources for the fact that the Union won the Civil War thanks to the intervention of an immortal vampire, who a century later moved to Hollywood, changed his name to Nicolas Cage, and became an actor. This undoubtedly started life as a joke when someone spotted a photo of a veteran who looked a lot like Cage, but since then has been picked up by people who don't get the joke.)
Remember, governments and government agencies have at various times come up with so many genuine conspiracies that have since been unmasked, that "they're hiding something from us" isn't automatically a crazy position. It's beyond doubt that programs like Project MKUltra did take place, and reasonable to assume that if this or a similar program did find something usable the government would keep it secret to avoid other nations and terrorist groups acquiring these capabilities. Likewise, anyone in Las Vegas can drive 65 miles to the northwest and see for themselves that there's an area that's unmarked on the maps which is bordered with shoot-to-kill warnings; yes, the official explanation (that they test weapons there and don't want civilians either wandering around putting themselves at risk, or taking photos of commercially sensitive new equipment) is almost certainly correct, but one can see why people think the government is trying to hide something. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The "Autopsy photos of a 'juvenile helicopter'" thingy is obviously poking fun at exactly the kind of nonsense this topic is making fun of. The author uses the word "fantabulous", for crying out loud; have a look at his FAQ. The time cube guy and so many others are dead serious, though. — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
"Serious question Yes, I'm aware this is not a forum, but I must ask: Are the authors of stuff like the black helicopter ridiculousness serious, or just yanking our collective carrot? Are there really people out there, armed with fly swatters and wearing aluminum foil deflector beanies, stalking tiny black helicopters? Or is this in the category of the Man Will Never Fly Society (motto: Birds Fly, Men Drink) -- people with a sense of humor, having a good time? "
A mix of both I suspect. There are several websites, magazines, and books devoted to the craziest conspiracy theories, but there are also websites which cover them in detail with tongue-in-cheek humor or make it quite clear that they want to mock them. Ranker, for example, has several lists primarily devoted to humorously examining conspiracy theories/and or fringe theories promoted by Reddit users.
In the case of the Black helicopter theory, it may be a bit outdated. A conspiracy theory which gained moderate media attention in the 1990s, but which no longer makes any headlines.
As for not so serious websites, the video which started this conversation may be one of them. The YouTube Channel which published the video is TopTenz, which is primarily aimed at entertainment. Per their self-description: "Entertaining top 10 lists that give you a full dose of trivia and fun facts on topics from history to pop culture, from music to movies, from the bizarre to travel and everything in between. "
One of their lists tries to "prove" that Bruce Lee was superhuman, another that Adolf Hitler was a complete idiot. They do not seem to take themselves too seriously. Dimadick ( talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
"don't want civilians ... taking photos of commercially sensitive new equipment"
Out of curiosity, isn't that illegal in the United States? I live in Alexandroupoli, Greece and there are several military camps within and without the city limits. All of them have signs reminding civilians that taking photos of the camps is illegal and could get you arrested. There is not much effort to cover anything from civilian eyes, and people can view the local tanks from an average highway. But taking pictures is a violation of anti-espionage legislation. Dimadick ( talk) 21:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This article has a lot of dubious sources on it, even a newspaper piece by Uri Geller. I am no fan of mediums and it is obvious Flint was a fraud but some of the sourcing looks wrong to me. It says for example in one reference to compare voices of Flint to those in a Youtube video. Is this not original research? 82.132.228.183 ( talk) 18:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not much of a fan of mediums, partly because as a child I read comic book stories which typically depicted them as a mixed group of professional con-artists, deluded frauds, and mentally unstable self-proclaimed prophets. (Thanks Disney comics). As an adult with a mild interest in the history of Spiritualism, I have not read anything that seriously challenges this depiction.
One problem with this article is that the biography section is so underdeveloped. No mention of parents, family, or social class. He is mentioned as wealthy, but the source of his wealth is not covered. No mention of education, passing reference that "Mr. I communicate with the dead" once worked in a cemetery, his World War II service is mentioned is passing, and that he was the founder of an organization is given without context. What was this organization? No date of death given, no cause either.
The "Fraud" section is better sourced, but the sources are contradicting each other on HOW he performed his frauds. One source suggested that he produced his cast of voices through use of prerecorded tapes, another suggests that he was a ventriloquist.
While implied in the text, it is not clearly stated that Flint did not do proper research on the backgrounds of the people he was trying to imitate. His impression of Italian-born Rudolph Valentino sounded French. (Valentino's mother was from France, not Valentino himself). His impression of Irish-born George Bernard Shaw sounded English. (Shaw's 17th-century paternal ancestor was from England, not Shaw himself). Dimadick ( talk) 22:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Brian D. Litman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Following up on an earlier inquiry, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D. Litman. The relevance here is in the use of a couple conspiracy websites and books. - Location ( talk) 20:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I have tried to redirect this article to extrasensory perception but apparently it needs more consensus, see the talk-page discussion. ScienceStudent99 ( talk) 15:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Redirects to Wheel of the Year, which is an interpretation of European calendars peculiar to neo-paganism. I would like to redirect it instead to Scottish term days, and ensure that Wheel of the Year is a description of what neo-pagans believe, separately from the historically-established calendars. Some more eyes would be useful. To simplify, in southern England the year was and is divided into four by saints' days close to the solstices and equinoxes while in Ireland, Scotland and northern England a different set of festivals has been used. Neo-pagans claimed with no evidence that these "Celtic" and "Germanic" festivals were all celebrated in an "eightfold year". Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure at all about the recent changes in Lamanite ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doug Weller talk 10:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Besides The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there are other groups following Mormonism, such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Apostolic United Brethren, and the Community of Christ. Religious denominations have a tendency to splinter into rival groups and Mormons are no exception. Some or all of them may view the Book of Mormon as holy scripture.
As for the relationship of the Book of Mormon to actual history, we have a decent article on the Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Among other things: "The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which there is no evidence in pre-Columbian America. These include asses, cattle, milk, horses, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, barley, figs, silk, steel, bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, iron working, plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots." Dimadick ( talk) 22:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
More eyeballs would be valued on WikiLeaks. One user, who has almost exclusively edited this article for the past seven months, has variously made outright removals of text relating to the group's promotion of conspiracy theories, and edits at odds with what the reliable sources directly state, in a bid to downplay the issue ( example). Neutrality talk 00:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
True Believers still pushing the claim that certain people have the ability to tell whether an electromagnetic field is on or off: [24] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
An editor, who originally introduced the material years ago (in between adding OR stuff about how the Bible predicted Hitler [25], that also stands unchallenged to this day), keeps re-adding an extract from a Huffpo blog post [1] claiming, paraphrased, "non-Euclidian geometry, therefore there is no truth". The author, a former physics post-doc turned new age guru, is not notable in any way I can find. I keep reverting it, but I'm getting bored with it. Am I missing something here? — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 11:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Sharyl Attkisson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I restored a previous version of a paragraph which seems to have been inserted solely to defame Paul Offit. Why this edit happened I leave to you to figure out.
jps ( talk) 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Creationist cosmologies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've tried to get this article deleted a number of times to no avail. I still cannot for the life of me figure out how it is not a WP:POVFORK of cosmology. Can someone explain? Are there any WP:FRIND sources that discuss the topic as a topic? jps ( talk) 14:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, according to multiple people currently editing the article, squirrels are capable of sponsoring cyberterrorism. I'm not entirely sure how, considering they can neither talk nor use computers. Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a mess. See the latest edit [26] which doesn't seem to match the source. [27] Most edits are by bran new editors or IPs. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
See recent edits. The new paragraphs would need independent sources wouldn't it? And Wirth is no scholar. The other changes look plain POV. I don't want to edit it on my iPad. Doug Weller talk 05:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Fringe non-notable author making wild claims about Cherokees originally speaking Greek, etc. 2nd AfD although that isn't showing up, must fix that later today! Doug Weller talk 08:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Already PROD'ed, I suspect this is fringe; subject promotes theory that Cherokee have European or African ancestry, and that geneticists are all wrong. Thoughts? Mduvekot ( talk) 23:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Donald N. Yates's works combine his knowledge of genealogy, DNA research, history, human migrations, and languages into his books and other writings about people's heritage, especially the Cherokee. I have been interested in ancient cultures all my life and read books on such research and, in recent years, of the additions and clarifications DNA science is bringing to human history.
As many academic historians established their careers before DNA research became available, they may not have availed themselves of its science in their research. Some have or will in the future if they assume an interdisciplinary approach.
I am new to Wikipedia and have to study the criteria for "fringe" and the line between fringe but notable and fringe non-notable. However, I want to add to the Yates page a list of his works through established publishers...as soon as I figure out how to add sections. Nightdesk ( talk) 19:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, again, for the direction and clarification. I'll continue learning about sourcing and such. Nightdesk ( talk) 20:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
A statement that this is pseudoscience has been removed from this article. Is it? Doug Weller talk 20:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Created kind ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been recreated due to the proposal that it is more general than baraminology. I support this move, but editors are probably needed to make sure it's done with the fringe guidelines in mind.
jps ( talk) 11:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Although someone removed the fringe category, this is clearly fringe. I just cleared up some vandalism from an earlier editor and some changes/deletions by User:Spem Reduxit, who is editing again using some poor sources, including Wikipedia, labelling someone a 'Muslim apologist' which I don't think helps our readers in this instance, and various other changes some of which are ok, others not (eg changing Christian fundamentalists to Christian followers which makes little sense). Doug Weller talk 12:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Despite being a big fan of The Man with Two Brains, I tried PROD'ing this, but an IP objected. I don't think this is serious ... anybody know more? Alexbrn ( talk) 17:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Plus, none of the sources discuss tissue preservation for the purpose of revival or rejuvenation, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical brain preservation - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#abovetopsecret.com if you have any feedback for this source. Looks dodgy to me. - Location ( talk) 03:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination).
Input of editors expert in WP:FRINGEBLP would be welcome. Outside opinions needed. jps ( talk) 11:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the latest bit of medical alarmism to wash over my Facebook feed. I don't doubt that this is a real condition, but given the huge range of the lone star tick, this is going to need to be screened to ensure the risk isn't being exaggerated. Mangoe ( talk) 22:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Came here via the ref desk. The article on optography does not claim anything that is outright wrong, but it certainly presents the stuff as a legit scientific theory, when the whole "scientific basis" for it is a one-man operation. Zero recent literature on the subject (you can also try in German).
I would say a serious trim is in order: and the article should be presented first and foremost as a popular belief of the 19th century. Kühne's experiments on rabbits seem legit, but the human part sounds incredibly fishy (the original picture was lost, it was made after the public got excited about the possibility). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not certain if this is the best forum, but given the nature of the issue, this is closest that I can determine. There is a content dispute at Land art. One editor OhioOakTree attempted to expand the scope of this article. To be as brief as possible, "land art" or "earth art" is a movement that appeared in the 1960s and '70s, mostly in the US and UK but a few other places. That's what the article is about. OhioOakTree insists that there is a connection of this 20th century art with prehistoric earth markings such as the Nazca lines and therefore those should also be called "earth art" in the context of this article. He provides no sources for this expanded notion of land/earth art; those that he did offer didn't say what he claims they said. Three editors, myself Bus stop and Modernist have attempted to discuss this on the talk page. OhioOakTree, through that account plus through several IP addresses (all Ohio IPs) has continuously re-added the disputed information and added a globalize template, claiming that the article doesn't address world-wide trends, which is false. There is discussion of late 20th century land/earth art from South America and a few other places.
This falls under WP:FRINGE as it is at best a fringe idea that there is any link between prehistoric land markings of unknown purpose and 20th century land art. It was suggested by Modernist and attempted by Bus stop to create a short mention of there being superficial appearances to earlier work but that there is no scholarly support for that (and common sense would appky as well; prehistoric humans were not making "earth art" in the manner of Robert Smithson of Spiral Jetty fame). Anything more would be WP:UNDUE. So we have attempted compromise and have discussed it a great deal, but OhioOakTree continues to be disruptive. Any other editors weighing in would be appreciated. freshacconci (✉) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
We are having a dispute about an alternative name for "chronic lyme" and more voices would be useful. The discussion is at Talk:Chronic_Lyme_disease#Synonyms Jytdog ( talk) 18:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
User "psychicbias" who is sock-puppeting on an IP and another account adding massive fringe material to the article, he also claims on the talk-page he has refuted Myers skeptics. There is a current sock-puppet investigation for psychicbias but the article may need extra eyes. 82.132.222.31 ( talk) 03:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Lots of egregiously fringe-promotional/unreliable cites and text in all three articles. Anyone up to take a weed-whacker to these? Neutrality talk 04:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Well Eternally collapsing object should be merged into Abhas Mitra, seeing as he's literally the only one pushing it. I also trimmed the Abhas article and made some quality-of-life corrections, but I'd honestly recommend some dynomite as the best solution. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 00:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There is discussion of how much this represents questionable claims, which from what I see, looking at the category members, is right up our alley. Mangoe ( talk) 11:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Orb (paranormal) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this a notable thing? IMO, it's a WP:POVFORK of Orb (optics) heavily sourced to WP:FRINGE sources, but what do I know. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This month we have two!
http://www.bodahub.com/does-finland-exist-conspiracy-theory/
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/ufo-blogger-spots-trump-on-mars
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Mac Tonnies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this worthy of a biography? The subject strikes me as having borderline notability, but I'd like to get some outside opinions on the matter.
jps ( talk) 11:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fringe writer with some pretty promotional unsourced stuff. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Tangentially related to Lionel, it's rather disgraceful that the revived Ghost Club is presented as if it was just a continuation of the original, seeing as the original was rather objective/skeptic and the newer versions that have cropped up are all fringe-pushers themselves.
Suggestions? 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 23:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Library angel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Almost at hoax level. Delete?
jps ( talk) 14:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The only source the article had was this [29], which is a psychiatry paper about coincidence that smells like woo but fails to mention either Koestler or the supposed "library angel" phenomenon. Article is currently sourceless. A Google search produces a few hits, none of them I've seen look reliable. Geogene ( talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call this a hoax. This is more like Maxwell's demon.-- Auric talk 23:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I have disengaged from the deprodders Talk. - Roxy the dog. bark 12:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Does this article pass the smell test? I notice the phrase "This issue is subject to skepticism, but only in the part of the researchers, who are not acquainted with scientific publications on the topic, the vast majority of which are in Russian", which seems a little defensive and not really the way we do things. I also notice that earlier versions of the article [30] are a lot more skeptical, with "Its effectiveness and utility as a treatment has been questioned" appearing in the lede. Artw ( talk) 22:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Jakuen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article doesn't smell right to me...
Darklight Shadows 21:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
This AfD needs more opinions, and since the subject may be wading in the water of fringe theories, I thought I'd post here. On her own site, FoundMyFitness.com, she describes herself thusly:
FoundMyFitness is Dr. Rhonda Patrick. Rhonda has extensive research experience in the fields of aging, cancer, nutrition. the platform by which Rhonda shares her insight from years of academic study and research on the best ways to increase healthspan.
In the AfD there appears to be highly divergent views on what constitutes passing NACADEMIC and BASIC. Delta13C ( talk) 07:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Lynne Kelly (science writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks like a curate's egg, some good, some bad. Skeptic but looks fringe for archaeology. Very clearly a promotional article from the start. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
"The Tulli Papyrus is an oft-cited document of questionable origins that some have interpreted as evidence of ancient flying saucers." Someone has just added 10 cn tags, almost one per sentence, plus a refimprov tag - which seems a bad idea, it should be one or the other. Any takers? Doug Weller talk 12:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full moon cycle (2nd nomination).
The article that goes into ridiculously loving detail as to why this is has been put up for deletion. There is definitely original research in there (though arguably mostly WP:CALC), but I'm curious as to whether there is some astrological fringe-y-ness that I may have missed in my once over, therefore posting here!
jps ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a modest effort to retrospectively link Fusion GPS (the opposition-research firm which was hired by both Democrats and Republicans prior to the 2016 US Election) with Rinat Akhmetshin(a Russian lawyer who allegedly met with Donald Trump Jr in summer of 2016). This seems to be a conspiracy theory born in the last 2 weeks. I've found some reliable sources that attest to the fact that Senator Chuck Grassley has made Justice Department complaint against the company, but no reliable, independent reporting that links the company with the Russian lawyer. I expect this to heat up very soon. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Canada's Stonehenge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - looks like either WP:ARTSPAM or WP:BOOKSPAM (love the bit of text " says Freeman, a laughing, vigorous 78" which is copied from the source. [33] The site is actually known as the "Majorville medicine wheel" or "Majorville cairn" [34] although fringe sources refer to as the Alberta Sun Temple. We need an article for the medicine wheel. No we don't, while writing this I've done a stub for Majorville Cairn and Medicine Wheel site. The book article is notable but clearly pov. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Uncritically relayed the health claims of the company. I've pecked at this a bit but there seems to be a lack of mainstream coverage with the exception of something from Skeptoid. [35] Is Skeptoid useful per WP:PARITY I wonder. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the best forum, but there seems to be quite a bit of OR regarding this article about a witchcraft-related subject going on. I've been poking through adding tags and cleaning things up, but there's quite a few problems. A lot of it is MOS type stuff, but I'm sure some regulars here could help with that, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
http://www.disclose.tv/news/morse_code_on_mars_photos_showing_a_series_of_strange_patterns/132976
"...just a story conjured up by NASA to divert our attention from the truth... From the very start we are taught (brainwashed) that there is a molten core in the centre of earth, but the reality could be something else that NASA or the concerned authorities do not want us to know as it will shake our belief in God and religion and there will be an uprising which certain powers would not like." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Even more than this gem I came across the other day? (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that this is a parody, but Poe's Law is hard to shake). jps ( talk) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Bradley Ayers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am acting on an earlier discussion in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Bradley Ayers in which I received a recommendation from A13ean and Salimfadhley that this should go to Afd. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Ayers if you wish to provide additional feedback. - Location ( talk) 23:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The review article in question makes novel use of our Mitochondrion article. [38] Alexbrn ( talk) 06:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this really a "controversy" that is documented in pertinent RS? Much of the sourcing seems to be synthesizing the topic from sources that do not discuss any such "controversy". (Also posted to WT:MED). Alexbrn ( talk) 12:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, Talk:0.999...#Request for comment: Which version neutrally summarizes the cited sources with appropriate weight? is a blatant attempt to give the fringe theory that 0.999… does not equal 1 undue weight. I would appreciate more eyes on this one. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Instead, it is an attempt to point out that the first two "proofs" fall well short of being mathematically valid demonstrations of the fact.If they are not rigorous, please show how they are not (I have, in the past, been presented with exactly those by qualified mathematicians and told in no uncertain terms that they are indeed proofs in the most formal sense). I have read the section and I do not see where you have presented any conditions under which an equation formed from the stated proofs could be shown to be false. Neither the discussion at talk nor the section cites any sources, so I cannot understand why you are making statements about what "the sources" say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Reminds me of how Introduction to general relativity was created in order to forestall problems with imprecise language that is almost certainly required to begin teaching the topic of general relativity which is, as an article, impenetrable to those without serious physics and mathematics chops. Similar things could be done here, perhaps. jps ( talk) 17:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that this discussion has strayed sufficiently off-topic for this board. Perhaps to bring it back around a bit: it is clear that there is a risk of propagating misunderstandings/fringe theories regardless of how you frame this particular article. People on the frontline of math education for the general populace will be concerned with an article that goes into technical detail and loses an audience who is prone to believing demonstrably incorrect ideas (such as ) while those who are experts who think carefully about mathematics will be concerned that the article doesn't present common misconceptions as truths encouraging the middle-brow reader into accepting demonstrably incorrect ideas about the nature of real numbers. What is important is that we are true to the sources about the topic that are written and editorially verified by experts. Beyond that, we cannot change the problems that come with a crowdsourced encyclopedia that is supposed to be all things to all people. jps ( talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Needs eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The article doesn't exist yet, but it may well soon, so this is a heads-up. See The Chamberlain Key: Unlocking the God Code to Reveal Divine Messages Hidden in the Bible. -- Thnidu ( talk) 02:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Participation in this discussion is welcomed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 07:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Sanat Kumara ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am amazed. 27 sections full of loving credulity. Does anyone have the patience to clean this up?
jps ( talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Suicide of Vince Foster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone check out this edit that moved Suicide of Vince Foster to Death of Vince Foster? This change appears to have been implemented based upon the claims of Miguel Rodriguez whose views don't get any substantial coverage in reliable source. Related: See current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death of Vincent Foster and previous at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Suicide of Vince Foster. - Location ( talk) 16:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination)
Input, please!
jps ( talk) 12:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Jim Marrs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Not in reliable sources yet, but article has been edited to reflect the word on Twitter that Marrs passed away today. Maybe a couple others could put the article on their watchlist. - Location ( talk) 00:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Pukwudgie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some kind of creature. Cited to a wordpress blog. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Can someone look over the article in general, as well as the expansion based upon this obituary that I reverted? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This articles puts forward the fringe theory that a miraculous event happened, and underrepresents the scientific consensus that there are non-paranormal explanation to this event.
Attempts to change this have been met with disruptive edits and edit warring from several users. The article needs to be changed significantly to belong in an encyclopedia.
The parent article Our Lady of Fátima as the same issues. KarlPoppery ( talk) 20:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Miracle of the Sun now seems fairly balanced and clear. Our Lady of Fátima may still need some cleanup. KarlPoppery ( talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I added the material to the all important lede to provide a summary of the non-religious POV already presented in the article. Have had to fight to keep it there. (Rp2006) 107.77.216.152 ( talk) 19:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to see, recent additions to the lead put undue weight on pseudoscientific explanations, bringing the article into WP:FRINGE territory. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Now, a persistent campaign by a Christian activist blogger editor who argues it's "censorship" for the article not to give the beliefs of "Catholics who are scientists" equal weight with the scientific mainstream. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Watergate scandal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see Talk:Watergate scandal/Archive 1#Conspiracy theory content. An observant IP noted that recent changes are cited to Ashton Gray's book that states that the Watergate burglars were attempting to distract from the kidnapping of L. Ron Hubbard as well as Jim Hougan's book which has been described by The New York Times as "Watergate revisionism". - Location ( talk) 22:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Just gonna leave this here. Seems...odd on it's face, but not sure what to do with it. TimothyJosephWood 14:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
On the Loch Ness monster article is a couple of extreme fringe views about the Surgeon's photograph. One reads as follows "The hoax story is disputed by Henry Bauer, who claims that the debunking is evidence of bias and asks why the perpetrators did not reveal their plot earlier to embarrass the newspaper.[41] According to Alastair Boyd, a researcher who uncovered the hoax, the Loch Ness Monster is real; the surgeon's photo hoax does not mean that other photos, eyewitness reports, and footage of the creature are also, and he claims to have seen it."
I really do not think Henry H. Bauer should be cited on the article. He is unreliable. Below Bauer, Tim Dinsdale is quoted as disputing the hoax photograph. Problem is, Dinsdale was writing a long time ago. It is pretty much accepted now by almost everyone that the surgeon photograph is a fake. I think these fringe viewpoints should be removed? Anyone else agree? I have a big foot ( talk) 14:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This article has just been created. It claims to not be about Applied Kinesiology, but what I see described really looks like Applied Kinesiology, unless I'm missing something... It claims that the technique has been shown efficient to identify truths from lies. That's a pretty blunt statement to make. It's probably based on this study done on 48 people. I don't think the study is enough to claim with confidence that a new lie detector has been found. Please keep an eye on the article. KarlPoppery ( talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Move request: /info/en/?search=Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Requested_move_19_May_2017
I think there are some Fridge Theory issues involved in the requested move and I would encourage you to visit the page and take part in the discussion. Casprings ( talk) 22:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Newly landed, and at first glance has some issues, like asserting in Wikipedia's voice that astral sight happens, and discussing "possible applications". Alexbrn ( talk) 07:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
In the article, this plant is described as quite a panacea : "The corm is prescribed for bronchitis, asthma, abdominal pain, emesis, dysentery, enlargement of spleen, piles, elephantiasis, diseases due to vitiated blood, and rheumatic swellings." The main source for these claims is behind a paywall. A quick search on Pubmed does give a few results. Does anyone here feel competent to evaluate the claims in this article? KarlPoppery ( talk) 08:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
User:ApLundell raised a question about this at RSN which I think is more relevant here. A source that doesn't seem to be used in our article is the 2016 publication of a facsimile by Yale including some scholarly essays. This New Yorker article gives a glimpse into what some of these say. An Amazon.Com review says the book has "six chapters dedicated to the history of the manuscript and the attempts that have been made to decipher it. While these chapters contain little new information, they are well researched, and cover what can be known about the manuscript without straying into the realm of unprovable hypothesis." So definitely, these would be excellent sources and perhaps give us guidance as to what should be included in our article. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
J. D. Tippit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
J. D. Tippit#Conspiracy theories contains a number of citations to the primary sources of JFK conspiracy theories (i.e. Jim Marrs, James W. Douglass, Kenn Thomas, and Sterling Haywood). Per various policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:REDFLAG), I thought these types of theories were only to be reported on to the extent they are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. Thoughts? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 13:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
More eyes on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories would be greatly appreciated - there has been a spate of fringe promotion recently from at least two users.
One user, Chippy55 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has introduced unsourced fringe-promotional text.
A second user - Gosale ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - did a mass PROFRINGE edit throughout the whole article, then another edit to downplay the antisemitic nature of various conspiracy claims advanced by Iranian media. Gosale also did the same thing in 2015 ( example), so I'm concerned about the pattern.
More eyeballs would be greatly appreciated. Neutrality talk 22:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It is slander because the information added to this article is emotionally motivated.
The goal of the editor is to provide a label to TV station. the TV station already have a an article and in that article all labels can be provided.
In the article "Sandy Hook..." the TV station publishes an article that is produced by someone else, why do the editor feel the need to label the TV station as anti semitic in this article. Surly the editor would not accept that every news source that publishes other people articles to be labelled in every wiki article that news agency is mentioned.
This is clearly a effort to include the foul label "anti-Semitic" in a effort to slander that organ.
I suggest we respect the articles main function and provide facts and allow the labelling of people and organizations for other articles.
Have in mind that there are many sources out there, video and audio sources that shows that not only are, press TV ant the Iranian government members including the supreme leader, not anti Semitics but in reality they hailing the Jewish people and the Jewish faith on MANY points in time. BUT this is not the place to argue the fact that a tv station is worthy of a label.
I would love to read your thinking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosale ( talk • contribs)
The aliens are at it again. Apparently, so it is alleged, they've set up their Dyson shell to act like a beacon, possibly including mirrored surfaces. But more discipline needs to applied to the sourcing. There are some there that are working as a direct link from blogs, Twitter, and various expert email discussion lists straight into the article. Used to be (last time this was in the news) we'd wait for peer review instead of collecting primary sources. Geogene ( talk) 00:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Remote viewing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Related to the above discussion on Watergate scandal, I noticed Ashton Gray has a couple of citations in Remote viewing. My suggestion is to revert the recent changes, however, I'm developing a strong bias against this source so I think someone else should check on it, too. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 15:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Rapa Nui people ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Inappropriate original research and WP:FRINGE material was removed from History of Easter Island . [4] However, similar text is included in the article on the people. I think what is happening here is that the fringe theory that there was contact between South America and Easter Island is getting more play on Wikipedia than in the WP:MAINSTREAM literature and while I see that obscure journals have published extremely speculative claims about all this, it is absolutely the case that there is no evidence that Rapa Nui culture is at all connected to South American indigenous culture (Rapa Nui traditional culture is 100% Polynesian according to all mainstream accounts I have been able to find). Can we get some help with this issue?
jps ( talk) 16:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/epic-pre-columbian-voyage-suggested-genes Slatersteven ( talk) 08:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Whether Polynesians reached the Americas and admixed with Native Americans during their eastward expansion that ended about 1 kyr ago remains controversial. A genetic study of ancient chicken remains from South America supports this scenario but has also been questioned. Genome sequencing of the remains of humans from Brazil that date to around AD1650, and therefore pre-date the recorded trade of Polynesian slaves to South America, shows that the individuals are closely related to contemporary Polynesians. These data potentially provide further support for early contact between Polynesians and Native Americans but they could also be the result of the European-mediated transportation of people. More convincing are the results of a genome-wide study of the modern-day inhabitants of Easter Island, which provided statistical support for Native American admixture that can be dated to 1280–1495, several hundred years before Europeans reached the islands in 1722. However, only evidence of Polynesian and Native American admixture in human remains that pre-date colonization in the Americas would settle the debate.( source)
Okay, are we talking past each other? These are the points I would like to see in the article: (1) some wonder whether the Rapa Nui traveled back-and-forth to South America, (2) there are genetic markers of Europeans and Amerindians in their modern genome, (3) it is controversial to assert pre-eighteenth century contact, but there are researchers who are currently making this claim on the basis of genetic evidence, sweet potatoes, and chickens. I think, however, that this shouldn't be the defining feature of the history of the people, though, and focusing on this controversy in the discussion of their history without mentioning their connection to Polynesia prominently is what I think may be WP:UNDUE. jps ( talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I am reading a book on Rapa Nui right now which is why I noticed the issue in the first place. I think a Google Scholar search of the history of the island itself can be useful for this. I don't find your text particularly objectionable -- only that it was all that was written and so it gave a sensation that this was the only important aspect of this well-studied history. jps ( talk) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I cannot remember all the different pages on the creation-evolution controversy which reference public opinions on evolution, but they probably need updating.
jps ( talk) 18:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This AFD [10] may be of interest, since the main keep argument is a probably fictional thing may still be notable as some people believe in it. My personal take is that it dies not meet WP:GNG in any case, though the article creator is insistent that getting mentioned in congress confers notability. Artw ( talk) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It's also got about twice the amount of words in a quote than we normally allow, but I haven't trimmed it yet. Parts of it have been added to Younger Dryas impact hypothesis and Göbekli Tepe (where the talk page discussion concluded that the research was too new to use, as well as by unqualified people, ie a Chemical engineers Professor and his student). See Talk:Göbekli Tepe#Sweatman and Tsikritsis 2017
The concept itself is mentioned in Impact winter, C. Leroy Ellenberger, William Napier (astronomer) and Victor Clube. The bulk of the main article is the huge quote from Sweatman and Tsikritis whose research mainly owes homage to Graham Hancock and Andrew Collins. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Coherent catastrophism should most definitely not be classed as fringe. It is accepted as mainstream in astronomy. Indeed, physically, it is simply stating the obvious - when a giant comet breaks up in the inner solar system the earth can be expected to experience increased risk of bombardment. It's a no brainer, and no academic would dispute it. What they might, and have, disputed are the catastrophic consequences of the Taurid meteor stream specifically, which corresponds to the very latest period of coherent catastrophism according to Clube and Napier and their colleagues. Again, this is not really disputed, as much as debated, within the current astronomical literature. Yes, the concept is mentioned very briefly elsewhere, but it is not explained. An explanation is necessary for other wiki pages (Gobekli Tepe, Younger Dryas etc). Your edits are over-cautious and biased.
Regarding the Sweatman and Tsikritsis paper - it is not relevant that they are engineers. Where does it say that engineers can't contribute to other research fields in the WIki Rules? What matters is where the article is published. It is published in a mainstream archaeological journal whose editor is highly respected in the field. It has been peer-reviewed by archaeologists (three, actually, if you care to read the paper). There is no reason to censor this.
You are quite right the quote is too long. I will correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystifiedCitizen ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Folks who have this board watchlisted may want to take a look at the recent editing at Adelle Davis, which has included using alt med practitioner/advocates as sources for material there. Yobol ( talk) 23:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:List of fake news websites there is a vigorous discussion about whether we should list things like blogs that promote conspiracy theories as "fake news sites" or whether that designation should be reserved for websites that attempt to fool the reader into thinking that they are legitimate news sites. Your input would be most appreciated. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is about the Autism Research Institute, an organization that used to promote the pseudoscientific belief that vaccines cause autism, but no longer does.
Two years ago, the article underwent a major rewrite by CorporateM ( talk · contribs), who has disclosed a conflict of interest. The draft was approved by admin Crisco 1492 ( talk · contribs), who may have acted a bit too quickly on this occasion.
The "new" and current version of this article is problematic. The article is a spin intended to convince it's reader that the organization has been completely transformed in a few years. But the main problem is that the writer removed any mention that the view the company still promotes, which is that nutrition and "toxins" cause autism, is also not supported by mainstream science. This was said clearly in the January 2015 version, but was removed in the corporate version of the article.
A Quackwatch article gives a more complete story about the organization, for those interested.
What I suggest, if this gains consensus, is that we start by reverting to the January 2015 version of the artice, and move on from there. KarlPoppery ( talk) 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Bob Lazar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For those who take on ET, there is a minor edit war in a UFO-related article. - Location ( talk) 02:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The article European medieval magic opens with "This article will discuss...". Groan. Then at times it wanders into ambiguous, borderline-in-universe tone, about demons, or elves, and "those who practiced it put themselves at risk of physical and spiritual assault from the demons they sought to control".
I'm sorry I can't even think about taking on this page. But I figured someone(s) here would probably be motivated to do some work on it. Alsee ( talk) 00:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
James B. Adams (professor) is about a ASU professor who's also an Anti-Vaxer [1], but that's not clearly indicated and the article makes problematic claims. I'd need help on this one, not sure how to navigate between WP:PSCI and WP:BLP. KarlPoppery ( talk) 18:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Tengri#See_also currently has a link to the word Dingir, claiming that the two words might be linked. The pseudolingustic connection between the Sumerian and Turkish languages is a belief that Turkish nationalists have been trying to push for years ( [11], [12], [13]).
Since the article is currently semi-ed (Thanks to those same nationalists), I can't remove the link. Would someone mind? 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 17:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a thread at Talk:Conversion therapy#"not discussed" revert regarding the best way to characterize conversion therapy in the lead. Seeking input. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I've just deleted a bit of copyvio from a section discussing Lucio Russo. Of what's left, some is sourced to a paper here in Italian reviewing Russo. I decided to translate the conclusion. This bit:
"Tuttavia, io sono convinto che i navigatori fenici possano essere arrivati sulle isole americane e forse anche sulle coste continentali. Non vi è motivo di dubitarne, le prove e le evidenze culturali, biologiche e archeologiche, molto ben presentate da Russo nella prima parte del libro, potrebbero già quasi provarlo e in futuro potrebbero anche moltiplicarsi fino a raggiungere quella massa critica che consenta di modificare lo scenario. Al contempo, sono assolutamente certo che la dimostrazione di Lucio Russo sul rimpicciolimento del mondo operato da Tolomeo e sul primo meridiano che passa per le Piccole Antille sia infondata, tecnicamente e filologicamente scorretta, nonché viziata da evidenti forzature e interpretazioni ad hoc, evitando accuratamente altre ipotesi, nemmeno menzionate. Un libro interessante che vale la pena di leggere con le dovute accortezze: il lettore disarmato potrebbe prendere per buono ciò che non è in grado di valutare o di comprendere, e l’autore ha per questo una grande responsabilità: quella di non essere riuscito a fornire al lettore gli strumenti necessari per il formarsi di un proprio giudizio critico."
which interestingly enough as the editor who added the source somehow forgot to mention it, translates as:
"However, I am convinced that Phoenician sailors can be reached on the American islands and perhaps even on the continental coasts. There is no reason to doubt it, the evidence and cultural, biological and archaeological evidence, well presented by Russians in the first part of the book, could almost prove it and in the future could also multiply to reach that critical mass that would scenario. At the same time, I am absolutely certain that Lucio Russo's demonstration of the world's plethora of Ptolemy's work and of the first meridian that passes on the Little Antilles is unfounded, technically and philologically incorrect, and is spoiled by obvious forcing and ad hoc interpretations, Hypothesis, not even mentioned. An interesting book that is worth reading with due diligence: the disarmed reader might take for good what he is unable to evaluate or understand, and The author has a big one for that Responsibility: that of not being able to provide the reader with the tools necessary for the formation of his own critical judgment."
It seems to me that some of this should be added to the section but I'm struggling with bits of the translation, esp. the "world's plethora" bit. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. Here it is my little help, as requested by Doug Weller: "However, I am convinced that Phoenician sailors COULD HAVE ARRIVED on the American islands and perhaps even on the continental coasts. There is no reason to doubt it, the PROOFS and cultural EVIDENCES, biological and archaeological, VERY well presented by RUSSO in the first part of the book, could ALREADY almost prove it and in the future could also multiply (THEMSELVES) UNTIL REACHING that critical mass that would ALLOW TO MODIFY THE scenario. At the same time, I am absolutely certain that Lucio Russo's demonstration ABOUT THE SHRINKING of the world DONE by Ptolomy and ABOUT the first meridian that passes on the Little Antilles is unfounded, technically and philologically incorrect, FURTHERMORE is spoiled by obvious forcing and ad hoc interpretations, BYPASSING CAREFULLY hypothesis, not even mentioned. An interesting book that is worth reading with due PRECAUTIONS: the disarmed reader might take for good what he is unable to evaluate or understand, and the author has BECAUSE OF THIS (REASON) A HUGE responsibility: that of not being able to provide the reader with the tools necessary for the formation of his own critical judgment." In capital letters are my additions. Regards, -- N591real ( talk) 19:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Following recent deletion, this article has reappeared. There is some dispute about the choice of sourcing and extent of its use within a WP:FRINGE context. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
See this edit Elio Cadelo believes the Romans visited American 500 years before Columbus, and that they were latecomers! The Italian Amazon site [14] says "The Romans visited America 1500 years before Columbus. Historical records leave no doubt: in imperial Rome was in possession of scientific knowledge, astronomical, nautical and geographical necessary to cross the Atlantic and arrive in the New World. The Latin texts speak of new lands to the west while numerous artifacts on display in the Italian and European museums prove that between the two sides of the Atlantic there were exchanges. The Romans were great navigators: east trading with India, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and their explorations led them to the Pacific islands and beyond. To the north they reached the Orkney Islands, Iceland, Greenland and perhaps along that route, they came over. In Africa, the presence of Roma is evidenced by numerous artefacts found both on the West Coast and on the East. II guide to these trips is in the writings of Pliny, Ptolemy, Herodotus, Seneca, Diodoro Siculo, Plutarch, Tacitus, Virgil and many other Greek and Latin authors. Roman sailors had technical and scientific skills such as to calculate the latitude and longitude and geographical knowledge were far superior to those of the sailors of the Middle Ages. The Romans were neither the first nor the only ones to arrive in the New World before Christopher Columbus: genetics, archeology and literature prove that Polynesians, Indians, Chinese, Phoenicians, Carthaginians and many other ancient peoples landed in America." He's an Italian Barry Fell. The website [15] User:N591real points to in their edit summary describes him as "Journalist, graduated in political Science, editor and special correspondent of the Giornale Radio Rai for Science and Environment. He worked on the "Corriere della Sera", in "The Morning," was co-worker of "Panorama", "Science Two thousand", "Period." Author and co-author of numerous publications such as: Seven Nobel for later(Teknos), The Mental Unemployment in Naples (Longo), a rituala devil, two cultures(History and Popular Medicine); has cared for Marsilio Editore Idea ofNature, 13 scientists are confronted. He received for the dissemination and scientific information and, in 2007 ENEA 1999 Prize, the Premio Giovanni Maria Pace for Science, he was a member of the Working Group on Information and communicat..." No way is this a reliable source. I'm of for the day for a foodie festival soon. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
::::Sincerely I only added some information about "another pineapple". I don't want to promote any "fringe theory"! I think that Elio Cadelo is a famous journalist in Italy (of the RAI, the official Italian Radio-TV institution: he is "Scrittore, Caporedattore giornale radio Rai per la scienza e l'ambiente") who is well accepted & judged in historian circles of Italy. So, for me he is a "Reliable source for claims of other pineapples: Elio Cadelo has won the Premio ENEA 1999 (please read
https://www.ibs.it/libri/autori/Elio%20Cadelo", as I wrote). Here it is a video where Cadelo comments his book about the Romans in America in the "Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici e Geografici":
[16]. It is in Italian, but I can give a translation if requested. Anyway, I just wanted to add this information...and nothing else....(but allow me to add that the pineapple shown in the hands of the roman kid inside the Geneva museum (see
http://www.lsdmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/resizephp.jpg and that was quickly made disappear by Doug Weller) has no round "grapes" near his hand like the wine-grape fruit, but "rectangular pieces" that looks astonishingly similar to this photo of an ananas:
https://avatanplus.com/files/resources/mid/573ecbf4cac11154cd4cb45e.png
). And we know that ananas is a fruit that can survive many weeks of travel, with only the loss of the green leaves....So, I think this Wikipedia article must add evidences like these pineapples and not only evidences about "Claims involving California canoes" & "Claims involving chickens". Regards to all of you.--
N591real (
talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
:Allow me to remember that this article is about theories and not facts....nearly half the theories in this article are not based on facts! Why all this problem? Sincerely I cannot understand why there it is no problem about "Claims involving chickens" but there it is such comments about the Roman possible presence in America?--
N591real (
talk) 15:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
:::So, in your opinion what is in the hands of the roman kid? At this point I like to leave all this mess. All this attacks -that is what I feel, sincerely- are on a simple refusal to allow that something roman can have reached America, but if it is Phoenician or Chinese or Polynesian....well that's acceptable. This reminds me the discussion (on academic circles, of course) about the latin word "perdomita", related to the fact that Britain -according to Tacitus who wrote "Britannia perdomita, sed olim missa est" (Britain was totally conquered but quickly was lost)- was fully conquered by the roman Agricola. As you probably know the british circles of historians linked to the "glory" of the British empire cannot accept that the word perdomita is made in latin from the words "PERfecta DOMInaTA" (meaning 'completely dominated' in classical latin) and so they deny the total conquest of Britain by Agricola. So, as written before, I like to leave all this mess & these attacks: I semi-retire from Wikipedia. --
N591real (
talk) 17:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
So some users and admin Doug Weller have obtained to impose what they wanted. Congratulations....But at the end nobody has answered my question: in your opinion what is in the hands of the roman kid in the Geneva museum?......obviously it can be ONLY an ananas from America! My last four cents with the same words of Galileo to the abuses of the Inquisition: EPPUR SI MUOVE....and at the end all of us admit that he was right!. So, in a similar way I am sure soon or later the truth about these pineapples in roman hands will come out.--
N591real (
talk) 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Nemetope, for your support and comments (and also for erasing the "childish vandalism"). I am glad that you have personally seen the small statue with the roman kid in the Geneva museum and find that the roman boy has in his hand a pineapple. And thanks to Slatersteven for writing that "we should also treat other users with respect, not ridicule"....I am sure soon or later the truth about these pineapples in roman hands will come out, even in Wikipedia! Thanks again.--
N591real (
talk) 13:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your thanks, N591real....I have seen personally the small statue of the roman boy I am totally sure it is an ananas, because of the pineapple rectangular pieces near the kid hand that cannot be dimples grapes but only pieces of leaves in the first stages of decomposition (probably this fruit was many weeks old). Here it is an image that shows the leaves falling: the first line of leaves covers the top of the ananas "dimples" (
[20]). I also remember the ananas of the Geneva museum was very similar to those imported from Puerto Rico: it is a species of pineapple imported in Switzerland. Finally I want to pinpoint that I agree with the above proposal of Gamall Wednesday Ida. --
Nemetope (
talk) 15:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
:::::Sincerely, I don't care of all this discussion about proposal. I only found another image that is similar to the ananas in the roman boy hand: (
[21]) and has leaves falling and covering the top of the ananas. For me (I repeat) there it no doubt at all, after having seen the small statue: it is a pineapple similar to the Puerto Rico species called often "Red Spanish". And I want to pinpoint that the person who wrote the book is a serious researcher who has been officially awarded, not a college student promoting OR.--
Nemetope (
talk) 16:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Michael Connell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is the left's version of Murder of Seth Rich. I saw a notice in WP:RSN about one of the sources, however, I think a second look should be taken at all of the sourcing. - Location ( talk) 14:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Steve Huff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bio of a guy who invented a box to talk to ghosts is heavy on pseudoscience and light nil on reliable independent sources. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 23:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Huff. jps ( talk) 10:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it me, or does this seem like a POV fork, especially given the title ("Darwinism"?). -- Calton | Talk 00:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
That is an excellent point. By making the page devoted exclusively to "alternatives", much of the history gets left out. There should be some editorial reason for doing this. If, for example, the history of evolutionary thought was too unwieldy. We spun out non-standard cosmology just so that our page on physical cosmology would not get bogged down. In any case, renaming with something like "alternatives" in the title still to me smacks of WP:GEVAL. jps ( talk) 12:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, the subject of the article is "theories of evolution, except the one about natural selection (but it is not really excepted because the article mentions it throughout, and it is one of the rows in the table)". So, how about adding one short paragraph linking to natural selection, then calling it Theories of evolution? That page is a redirect to Evolution now.
Also, why not sort the ideas chronologically? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 22:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
If you can't trust Burl Ives, who can you trust?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It gets better: "Monroe had had phone coversations with reporter Dorothy Kilgallen, who was looking into the famous Roswell incident."
Dorothy Kilgallen (d. 1965) was a celebrated journalist, whose column covered the topics of show business, politics, and organized crime. Since when is Roswell remotely connected to these topics?
Her article does not mention it, but there are conspiracy theories about Kilgallen's own death. That the "accidental" drug death was not accidental, but a poisoning case. Which unfortunately is her main claim to fame nowadays. Dimadick ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, there is currently a deletion discussion regarding this creationist dinosaur museum at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum Agricolae ( talk) 18:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
There is some peculiar language in this article: "The museum promotes the belief that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time"
This belief is quite true from a phylogenetic perspective. The birds have been reclassified as dinosaurs. Quoting our own article on the subject:
Not only are humans co-existing with dinosaurs under this definition. Companies such as KFC ensure that we are using some dinosaurs for food. Dimadick ( talk) 19:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You removed a statement about avian dinosaurs, without removing or addressing the scientific definition of dinosaur. I do not think you are familiar with "fringe" if you find the phylogenetic tree to be fringe science. Dimadick ( talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about phylogeny, not taxonomy. Taxonomy often classifies organisms based on outdated ideas from the 18th century. Fish are no longer considered a valid grouping, as explained in our article on them: "Tetrapods emerged within lobe-finned fishes, so cladistically they are fish as well. However, traditionally fish are rendered obsolete or paraphyletic by excluding the tetrapods (i.e., the amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals which all descended from within the same ancestry). Because in this manner the term "fish" is defined negatively as a paraphyletic group, it is not considered a formal taxonomic grouping in systematic biology. The traditional term pisces (also ichthyes) is considered a typological, but not a phylogenetic classification." Dimadick ( talk) 21:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wCFIJ-XnRY
Yes, I know that this one is a video, but trust me, it is worth it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Finland doesn't exist. [23] Doug Weller talk 11:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Serious question Yes, I'm aware this is not a forum, but I must ask: Are the authors of stuff like the black helicopter ridiculousness serious, or just yanking our collective carrot? Are there really people out there, armed with fly swatters and wearing aluminum foil deflector beanies, stalking tiny black helicopters? Or is this in the category of the Man Will Never Fly Society (motto: Birds Fly, Men Drink) -- people with a sense of humor, having a good time? Until last November I was certain that the black helicopter/hollow moon/chemtrail people couldn't possibly expect any rational human to believe any of this stuff -- and then Trump somehow convinced 80 million people to vote for him, so I just don't know anymore. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 13:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
On the ultra-crazy fringe, it gets more complicated—a lot of things start off as hoaxes but get taken up by people who genuinely believe them. (I can provide numerous reliable sources for the fact that the Union won the Civil War thanks to the intervention of an immortal vampire, who a century later moved to Hollywood, changed his name to Nicolas Cage, and became an actor. This undoubtedly started life as a joke when someone spotted a photo of a veteran who looked a lot like Cage, but since then has been picked up by people who don't get the joke.)
Remember, governments and government agencies have at various times come up with so many genuine conspiracies that have since been unmasked, that "they're hiding something from us" isn't automatically a crazy position. It's beyond doubt that programs like Project MKUltra did take place, and reasonable to assume that if this or a similar program did find something usable the government would keep it secret to avoid other nations and terrorist groups acquiring these capabilities. Likewise, anyone in Las Vegas can drive 65 miles to the northwest and see for themselves that there's an area that's unmarked on the maps which is bordered with shoot-to-kill warnings; yes, the official explanation (that they test weapons there and don't want civilians either wandering around putting themselves at risk, or taking photos of commercially sensitive new equipment) is almost certainly correct, but one can see why people think the government is trying to hide something. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The "Autopsy photos of a 'juvenile helicopter'" thingy is obviously poking fun at exactly the kind of nonsense this topic is making fun of. The author uses the word "fantabulous", for crying out loud; have a look at his FAQ. The time cube guy and so many others are dead serious, though. — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
"Serious question Yes, I'm aware this is not a forum, but I must ask: Are the authors of stuff like the black helicopter ridiculousness serious, or just yanking our collective carrot? Are there really people out there, armed with fly swatters and wearing aluminum foil deflector beanies, stalking tiny black helicopters? Or is this in the category of the Man Will Never Fly Society (motto: Birds Fly, Men Drink) -- people with a sense of humor, having a good time? "
A mix of both I suspect. There are several websites, magazines, and books devoted to the craziest conspiracy theories, but there are also websites which cover them in detail with tongue-in-cheek humor or make it quite clear that they want to mock them. Ranker, for example, has several lists primarily devoted to humorously examining conspiracy theories/and or fringe theories promoted by Reddit users.
In the case of the Black helicopter theory, it may be a bit outdated. A conspiracy theory which gained moderate media attention in the 1990s, but which no longer makes any headlines.
As for not so serious websites, the video which started this conversation may be one of them. The YouTube Channel which published the video is TopTenz, which is primarily aimed at entertainment. Per their self-description: "Entertaining top 10 lists that give you a full dose of trivia and fun facts on topics from history to pop culture, from music to movies, from the bizarre to travel and everything in between. "
One of their lists tries to "prove" that Bruce Lee was superhuman, another that Adolf Hitler was a complete idiot. They do not seem to take themselves too seriously. Dimadick ( talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
"don't want civilians ... taking photos of commercially sensitive new equipment"
Out of curiosity, isn't that illegal in the United States? I live in Alexandroupoli, Greece and there are several military camps within and without the city limits. All of them have signs reminding civilians that taking photos of the camps is illegal and could get you arrested. There is not much effort to cover anything from civilian eyes, and people can view the local tanks from an average highway. But taking pictures is a violation of anti-espionage legislation. Dimadick ( talk) 21:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This article has a lot of dubious sources on it, even a newspaper piece by Uri Geller. I am no fan of mediums and it is obvious Flint was a fraud but some of the sourcing looks wrong to me. It says for example in one reference to compare voices of Flint to those in a Youtube video. Is this not original research? 82.132.228.183 ( talk) 18:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not much of a fan of mediums, partly because as a child I read comic book stories which typically depicted them as a mixed group of professional con-artists, deluded frauds, and mentally unstable self-proclaimed prophets. (Thanks Disney comics). As an adult with a mild interest in the history of Spiritualism, I have not read anything that seriously challenges this depiction.
One problem with this article is that the biography section is so underdeveloped. No mention of parents, family, or social class. He is mentioned as wealthy, but the source of his wealth is not covered. No mention of education, passing reference that "Mr. I communicate with the dead" once worked in a cemetery, his World War II service is mentioned is passing, and that he was the founder of an organization is given without context. What was this organization? No date of death given, no cause either.
The "Fraud" section is better sourced, but the sources are contradicting each other on HOW he performed his frauds. One source suggested that he produced his cast of voices through use of prerecorded tapes, another suggests that he was a ventriloquist.
While implied in the text, it is not clearly stated that Flint did not do proper research on the backgrounds of the people he was trying to imitate. His impression of Italian-born Rudolph Valentino sounded French. (Valentino's mother was from France, not Valentino himself). His impression of Irish-born George Bernard Shaw sounded English. (Shaw's 17th-century paternal ancestor was from England, not Shaw himself). Dimadick ( talk) 22:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Brian D. Litman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Following up on an earlier inquiry, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D. Litman. The relevance here is in the use of a couple conspiracy websites and books. - Location ( talk) 20:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I have tried to redirect this article to extrasensory perception but apparently it needs more consensus, see the talk-page discussion. ScienceStudent99 ( talk) 15:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Redirects to Wheel of the Year, which is an interpretation of European calendars peculiar to neo-paganism. I would like to redirect it instead to Scottish term days, and ensure that Wheel of the Year is a description of what neo-pagans believe, separately from the historically-established calendars. Some more eyes would be useful. To simplify, in southern England the year was and is divided into four by saints' days close to the solstices and equinoxes while in Ireland, Scotland and northern England a different set of festivals has been used. Neo-pagans claimed with no evidence that these "Celtic" and "Germanic" festivals were all celebrated in an "eightfold year". Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure at all about the recent changes in Lamanite ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doug Weller talk 10:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Besides The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there are other groups following Mormonism, such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Apostolic United Brethren, and the Community of Christ. Religious denominations have a tendency to splinter into rival groups and Mormons are no exception. Some or all of them may view the Book of Mormon as holy scripture.
As for the relationship of the Book of Mormon to actual history, we have a decent article on the Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Among other things: "The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which there is no evidence in pre-Columbian America. These include asses, cattle, milk, horses, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, barley, figs, silk, steel, bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, iron working, plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots." Dimadick ( talk) 22:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
More eyeballs would be valued on WikiLeaks. One user, who has almost exclusively edited this article for the past seven months, has variously made outright removals of text relating to the group's promotion of conspiracy theories, and edits at odds with what the reliable sources directly state, in a bid to downplay the issue ( example). Neutrality talk 00:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
True Believers still pushing the claim that certain people have the ability to tell whether an electromagnetic field is on or off: [24] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
An editor, who originally introduced the material years ago (in between adding OR stuff about how the Bible predicted Hitler [25], that also stands unchallenged to this day), keeps re-adding an extract from a Huffpo blog post [1] claiming, paraphrased, "non-Euclidian geometry, therefore there is no truth". The author, a former physics post-doc turned new age guru, is not notable in any way I can find. I keep reverting it, but I'm getting bored with it. Am I missing something here? — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 11:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Sharyl Attkisson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I restored a previous version of a paragraph which seems to have been inserted solely to defame Paul Offit. Why this edit happened I leave to you to figure out.
jps ( talk) 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Creationist cosmologies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've tried to get this article deleted a number of times to no avail. I still cannot for the life of me figure out how it is not a WP:POVFORK of cosmology. Can someone explain? Are there any WP:FRIND sources that discuss the topic as a topic? jps ( talk) 14:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, according to multiple people currently editing the article, squirrels are capable of sponsoring cyberterrorism. I'm not entirely sure how, considering they can neither talk nor use computers. Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a mess. See the latest edit [26] which doesn't seem to match the source. [27] Most edits are by bran new editors or IPs. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
See recent edits. The new paragraphs would need independent sources wouldn't it? And Wirth is no scholar. The other changes look plain POV. I don't want to edit it on my iPad. Doug Weller talk 05:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Fringe non-notable author making wild claims about Cherokees originally speaking Greek, etc. 2nd AfD although that isn't showing up, must fix that later today! Doug Weller talk 08:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Already PROD'ed, I suspect this is fringe; subject promotes theory that Cherokee have European or African ancestry, and that geneticists are all wrong. Thoughts? Mduvekot ( talk) 23:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Donald N. Yates's works combine his knowledge of genealogy, DNA research, history, human migrations, and languages into his books and other writings about people's heritage, especially the Cherokee. I have been interested in ancient cultures all my life and read books on such research and, in recent years, of the additions and clarifications DNA science is bringing to human history.
As many academic historians established their careers before DNA research became available, they may not have availed themselves of its science in their research. Some have or will in the future if they assume an interdisciplinary approach.
I am new to Wikipedia and have to study the criteria for "fringe" and the line between fringe but notable and fringe non-notable. However, I want to add to the Yates page a list of his works through established publishers...as soon as I figure out how to add sections. Nightdesk ( talk) 19:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, again, for the direction and clarification. I'll continue learning about sourcing and such. Nightdesk ( talk) 20:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
A statement that this is pseudoscience has been removed from this article. Is it? Doug Weller talk 20:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Created kind ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been recreated due to the proposal that it is more general than baraminology. I support this move, but editors are probably needed to make sure it's done with the fringe guidelines in mind.
jps ( talk) 11:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Although someone removed the fringe category, this is clearly fringe. I just cleared up some vandalism from an earlier editor and some changes/deletions by User:Spem Reduxit, who is editing again using some poor sources, including Wikipedia, labelling someone a 'Muslim apologist' which I don't think helps our readers in this instance, and various other changes some of which are ok, others not (eg changing Christian fundamentalists to Christian followers which makes little sense). Doug Weller talk 12:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Despite being a big fan of The Man with Two Brains, I tried PROD'ing this, but an IP objected. I don't think this is serious ... anybody know more? Alexbrn ( talk) 17:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Plus, none of the sources discuss tissue preservation for the purpose of revival or rejuvenation, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical brain preservation - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#abovetopsecret.com if you have any feedback for this source. Looks dodgy to me. - Location ( talk) 03:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination).
Input of editors expert in WP:FRINGEBLP would be welcome. Outside opinions needed. jps ( talk) 11:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the latest bit of medical alarmism to wash over my Facebook feed. I don't doubt that this is a real condition, but given the huge range of the lone star tick, this is going to need to be screened to ensure the risk isn't being exaggerated. Mangoe ( talk) 22:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Came here via the ref desk. The article on optography does not claim anything that is outright wrong, but it certainly presents the stuff as a legit scientific theory, when the whole "scientific basis" for it is a one-man operation. Zero recent literature on the subject (you can also try in German).
I would say a serious trim is in order: and the article should be presented first and foremost as a popular belief of the 19th century. Kühne's experiments on rabbits seem legit, but the human part sounds incredibly fishy (the original picture was lost, it was made after the public got excited about the possibility). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not certain if this is the best forum, but given the nature of the issue, this is closest that I can determine. There is a content dispute at Land art. One editor OhioOakTree attempted to expand the scope of this article. To be as brief as possible, "land art" or "earth art" is a movement that appeared in the 1960s and '70s, mostly in the US and UK but a few other places. That's what the article is about. OhioOakTree insists that there is a connection of this 20th century art with prehistoric earth markings such as the Nazca lines and therefore those should also be called "earth art" in the context of this article. He provides no sources for this expanded notion of land/earth art; those that he did offer didn't say what he claims they said. Three editors, myself Bus stop and Modernist have attempted to discuss this on the talk page. OhioOakTree, through that account plus through several IP addresses (all Ohio IPs) has continuously re-added the disputed information and added a globalize template, claiming that the article doesn't address world-wide trends, which is false. There is discussion of late 20th century land/earth art from South America and a few other places.
This falls under WP:FRINGE as it is at best a fringe idea that there is any link between prehistoric land markings of unknown purpose and 20th century land art. It was suggested by Modernist and attempted by Bus stop to create a short mention of there being superficial appearances to earlier work but that there is no scholarly support for that (and common sense would appky as well; prehistoric humans were not making "earth art" in the manner of Robert Smithson of Spiral Jetty fame). Anything more would be WP:UNDUE. So we have attempted compromise and have discussed it a great deal, but OhioOakTree continues to be disruptive. Any other editors weighing in would be appreciated. freshacconci (✉) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
We are having a dispute about an alternative name for "chronic lyme" and more voices would be useful. The discussion is at Talk:Chronic_Lyme_disease#Synonyms Jytdog ( talk) 18:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
User "psychicbias" who is sock-puppeting on an IP and another account adding massive fringe material to the article, he also claims on the talk-page he has refuted Myers skeptics. There is a current sock-puppet investigation for psychicbias but the article may need extra eyes. 82.132.222.31 ( talk) 03:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Lots of egregiously fringe-promotional/unreliable cites and text in all three articles. Anyone up to take a weed-whacker to these? Neutrality talk 04:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Well Eternally collapsing object should be merged into Abhas Mitra, seeing as he's literally the only one pushing it. I also trimmed the Abhas article and made some quality-of-life corrections, but I'd honestly recommend some dynomite as the best solution. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 00:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There is discussion of how much this represents questionable claims, which from what I see, looking at the category members, is right up our alley. Mangoe ( talk) 11:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Orb (paranormal) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this a notable thing? IMO, it's a WP:POVFORK of Orb (optics) heavily sourced to WP:FRINGE sources, but what do I know. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This month we have two!
http://www.bodahub.com/does-finland-exist-conspiracy-theory/
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/ufo-blogger-spots-trump-on-mars
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Mac Tonnies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this worthy of a biography? The subject strikes me as having borderline notability, but I'd like to get some outside opinions on the matter.
jps ( talk) 11:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fringe writer with some pretty promotional unsourced stuff. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Tangentially related to Lionel, it's rather disgraceful that the revived Ghost Club is presented as if it was just a continuation of the original, seeing as the original was rather objective/skeptic and the newer versions that have cropped up are all fringe-pushers themselves.
Suggestions? 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 23:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Library angel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Almost at hoax level. Delete?
jps ( talk) 14:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The only source the article had was this [29], which is a psychiatry paper about coincidence that smells like woo but fails to mention either Koestler or the supposed "library angel" phenomenon. Article is currently sourceless. A Google search produces a few hits, none of them I've seen look reliable. Geogene ( talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call this a hoax. This is more like Maxwell's demon.-- Auric talk 23:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I have disengaged from the deprodders Talk. - Roxy the dog. bark 12:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Does this article pass the smell test? I notice the phrase "This issue is subject to skepticism, but only in the part of the researchers, who are not acquainted with scientific publications on the topic, the vast majority of which are in Russian", which seems a little defensive and not really the way we do things. I also notice that earlier versions of the article [30] are a lot more skeptical, with "Its effectiveness and utility as a treatment has been questioned" appearing in the lede. Artw ( talk) 22:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Jakuen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article doesn't smell right to me...
Darklight Shadows 21:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
This AfD needs more opinions, and since the subject may be wading in the water of fringe theories, I thought I'd post here. On her own site, FoundMyFitness.com, she describes herself thusly:
FoundMyFitness is Dr. Rhonda Patrick. Rhonda has extensive research experience in the fields of aging, cancer, nutrition. the platform by which Rhonda shares her insight from years of academic study and research on the best ways to increase healthspan.
In the AfD there appears to be highly divergent views on what constitutes passing NACADEMIC and BASIC. Delta13C ( talk) 07:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Lynne Kelly (science writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks like a curate's egg, some good, some bad. Skeptic but looks fringe for archaeology. Very clearly a promotional article from the start. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
"The Tulli Papyrus is an oft-cited document of questionable origins that some have interpreted as evidence of ancient flying saucers." Someone has just added 10 cn tags, almost one per sentence, plus a refimprov tag - which seems a bad idea, it should be one or the other. Any takers? Doug Weller talk 12:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full moon cycle (2nd nomination).
The article that goes into ridiculously loving detail as to why this is has been put up for deletion. There is definitely original research in there (though arguably mostly WP:CALC), but I'm curious as to whether there is some astrological fringe-y-ness that I may have missed in my once over, therefore posting here!
jps ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a modest effort to retrospectively link Fusion GPS (the opposition-research firm which was hired by both Democrats and Republicans prior to the 2016 US Election) with Rinat Akhmetshin(a Russian lawyer who allegedly met with Donald Trump Jr in summer of 2016). This seems to be a conspiracy theory born in the last 2 weeks. I've found some reliable sources that attest to the fact that Senator Chuck Grassley has made Justice Department complaint against the company, but no reliable, independent reporting that links the company with the Russian lawyer. I expect this to heat up very soon. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Canada's Stonehenge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - looks like either WP:ARTSPAM or WP:BOOKSPAM (love the bit of text " says Freeman, a laughing, vigorous 78" which is copied from the source. [33] The site is actually known as the "Majorville medicine wheel" or "Majorville cairn" [34] although fringe sources refer to as the Alberta Sun Temple. We need an article for the medicine wheel. No we don't, while writing this I've done a stub for Majorville Cairn and Medicine Wheel site. The book article is notable but clearly pov. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Uncritically relayed the health claims of the company. I've pecked at this a bit but there seems to be a lack of mainstream coverage with the exception of something from Skeptoid. [35] Is Skeptoid useful per WP:PARITY I wonder. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the best forum, but there seems to be quite a bit of OR regarding this article about a witchcraft-related subject going on. I've been poking through adding tags and cleaning things up, but there's quite a few problems. A lot of it is MOS type stuff, but I'm sure some regulars here could help with that, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
http://www.disclose.tv/news/morse_code_on_mars_photos_showing_a_series_of_strange_patterns/132976
"...just a story conjured up by NASA to divert our attention from the truth... From the very start we are taught (brainwashed) that there is a molten core in the centre of earth, but the reality could be something else that NASA or the concerned authorities do not want us to know as it will shake our belief in God and religion and there will be an uprising which certain powers would not like." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Even more than this gem I came across the other day? (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that this is a parody, but Poe's Law is hard to shake). jps ( talk) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Bradley Ayers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am acting on an earlier discussion in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Bradley Ayers in which I received a recommendation from A13ean and Salimfadhley that this should go to Afd. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Ayers if you wish to provide additional feedback. - Location ( talk) 23:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The review article in question makes novel use of our Mitochondrion article. [38] Alexbrn ( talk) 06:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this really a "controversy" that is documented in pertinent RS? Much of the sourcing seems to be synthesizing the topic from sources that do not discuss any such "controversy". (Also posted to WT:MED). Alexbrn ( talk) 12:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, Talk:0.999...#Request for comment: Which version neutrally summarizes the cited sources with appropriate weight? is a blatant attempt to give the fringe theory that 0.999… does not equal 1 undue weight. I would appreciate more eyes on this one. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Instead, it is an attempt to point out that the first two "proofs" fall well short of being mathematically valid demonstrations of the fact.If they are not rigorous, please show how they are not (I have, in the past, been presented with exactly those by qualified mathematicians and told in no uncertain terms that they are indeed proofs in the most formal sense). I have read the section and I do not see where you have presented any conditions under which an equation formed from the stated proofs could be shown to be false. Neither the discussion at talk nor the section cites any sources, so I cannot understand why you are making statements about what "the sources" say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Reminds me of how Introduction to general relativity was created in order to forestall problems with imprecise language that is almost certainly required to begin teaching the topic of general relativity which is, as an article, impenetrable to those without serious physics and mathematics chops. Similar things could be done here, perhaps. jps ( talk) 17:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that this discussion has strayed sufficiently off-topic for this board. Perhaps to bring it back around a bit: it is clear that there is a risk of propagating misunderstandings/fringe theories regardless of how you frame this particular article. People on the frontline of math education for the general populace will be concerned with an article that goes into technical detail and loses an audience who is prone to believing demonstrably incorrect ideas (such as ) while those who are experts who think carefully about mathematics will be concerned that the article doesn't present common misconceptions as truths encouraging the middle-brow reader into accepting demonstrably incorrect ideas about the nature of real numbers. What is important is that we are true to the sources about the topic that are written and editorially verified by experts. Beyond that, we cannot change the problems that come with a crowdsourced encyclopedia that is supposed to be all things to all people. jps ( talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Needs eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The article doesn't exist yet, but it may well soon, so this is a heads-up. See The Chamberlain Key: Unlocking the God Code to Reveal Divine Messages Hidden in the Bible. -- Thnidu ( talk) 02:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Participation in this discussion is welcomed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 07:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Sanat Kumara ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am amazed. 27 sections full of loving credulity. Does anyone have the patience to clean this up?
jps ( talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Suicide of Vince Foster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone check out this edit that moved Suicide of Vince Foster to Death of Vince Foster? This change appears to have been implemented based upon the claims of Miguel Rodriguez whose views don't get any substantial coverage in reliable source. Related: See current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death of Vincent Foster and previous at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Suicide of Vince Foster. - Location ( talk) 16:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination)
Input, please!
jps ( talk) 12:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Jim Marrs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Not in reliable sources yet, but article has been edited to reflect the word on Twitter that Marrs passed away today. Maybe a couple others could put the article on their watchlist. - Location ( talk) 00:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Pukwudgie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some kind of creature. Cited to a wordpress blog. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Can someone look over the article in general, as well as the expansion based upon this obituary that I reverted? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)