This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Gary Renard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Notable enough for a WP:FRINGEBLP? WP:AUTHOR? WP:GNG? Do we yet know who in the vast WP:Walled Garden of A Course in Miracles community is notable and who isn't? How do we decide? (At least Wayne Dyer did a huge number of PBS specials). jps ( talk) 15:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
jps ( talk) 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is of course (this is a general reply, so not indented as a reply to one user) one of the peculiarities of our concept of notability, a book can be more notable then the author (and yes I have even created just such a page). It seems a bit counter intuitive, but it is how Wikipedia functions. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I've seen a deletion discussion that lopsided in favor of delete be ruled "no consensus" before. I guess I could ask for a WP:DRV. If the closer would just look at the arguments in the AfD it would be clear that they ran along the lines of A:Here's a lot of sources. B: None of them are usable according to WP:FRIND, WP:RS, etc. A: Yes they are! B: Explain. A: (silence). Isn't that a fair summary of the discussion? jps ( talk) 03:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this represents a breakdown of analytical capabilities. The WP:ONUS is on those who believe that compliant sources for article exist. That simple standard was not met. jps ( talk) 09:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Can we please leave it now, the AFD is over the decision was keep. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
THIS IS A TOTALLY NEUTRAL NOTICE ABOUT A 4TH AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (4th nomination). Please share this with anyone and everyone who may be able to shed light on the subject. Do not construe this message in any way as a canvassing. Much Love. jps ( talk) 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The AfD discussion for morphogenetic resonance seems pertinent to this Noticeboard. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
See their comments when reverted at User talk:120.144.146.136. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Eyes and input welcome at WP:FRINGE and Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Recent edits by 76.11.94.233. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 00:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I typically removed dubious or fringe external links by citing WP:ELNO #2; however, I am wondering if this is typically done with similar sources that appear in the the "Further reading" section of articles. For example, the article on Allen Dulles includes David Talbot's biography of Dulles which states that Dulles arranged to have Lee Harvey Oswald framed as the sole assassin of JFK, then JFK's assassins killed RFK, too. My own view is that sources that mix reliable and unreliable material shouldn't be included (perhaps via Wikipedia:Further reading#Reliable) but I'm wondering what others think. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 00:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
"I understand our present view of human history is completely different from what we are proposing, but based on these ancient papyri we must consider the possibility that dinosaurs may have lived amongst ancient Egyptians and were possibly tamed to carry the huge blocks that compose the pyramids." [2] – Professor Nabir Al-Sammud, Egyptologist
Bonus: Fringe theories that have books on them on Amazon:
A Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory [3] [4]
Olympic & Titanic [5]
Enjoy! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be a way to bring back content from Pranic healing which was stubbed out after a drawn-out battle with fringe-theory promoters a few years back. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
A mess and at the moment a WP:BLP violation I think. Might get more unhelpful attention after claims of crisis actors at the Unite the Right rally. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Talk:Jesus#Failed verification. The content requires a source to verify the claim. QuackGuru ( talk) 11:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
"Reformist" cardinals in a cabal against Benedict XVI? The article seems possibly OK now but I'm a bit unfamiliar with the material; there's a category discussion about the membership of this group. Mangoe ( talk) 19:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Possibly the worst thing about the entry is the "Team Bergoglio" section, which tries to elevate a journalist's tag name for (once again) a group of like-minded individuals into a cabal, whose purported activities seem to be nothing of note and certainly nothing as serious as what is alleged. I added the disclaimer by the four named cardinals, without which this was very much in violation of WP:BLP, and even with that disclaimer I imagine. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Could use some eyes. An editor working for the two... "inventors" of this method just got brought to COIN. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 09:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
An article was recently published online ( doi: 10.1016/j.grj.2017.08.001) from the journal GeoResJ that is peer reviewed and concludes most of global warming is natural and not man-made. It has attracted attention from the conservative media and criticism from scientists. I have written a section on it at Jennifer Marohasy#2017 GeoResJ manuscript as Marohasy was the lead author. I am reporting my addition here for several reasons:
This is likely to continue to develop. The graph produced by Gavin Schmidt and posted on twitter is only 3 days old and would be good for the article, if it is available. I have also seen little coverage of the scientific community's response, except from the Guardian article by Graham Readfearn, but it seems inevitable to me that there will be more.
Any and all comments, advice, criticisms, etc, welcome. EdChem ( talk) 07:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It is clear that the correlation is poorneed rectification. The section is perhaps giving too much weight to news media and too little on scientists. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Another fringe article. Someone keeps trying to add a Christian Pastor and Bible teacher named Kubo to the lead. I see we use him as a source and he's pushed in "Further reading". I'm not sure who the Mcleod is in the source and further reading unless it's a Scottish 19th century author who supported this idea and is mentioned in the source, but he wasn't writing books in the late 20th century. One of the publishers, Tokuma Shoten, is an entertainment publisher. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The author is Nicholas McLeod, a 19th century fringe writer, who is sometimes credited as "Norman". Dimadick ( talk) 12:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Michael Pollan wrote stuff like:
“ | Their potion recipes called for such things as datura, opium poppies, belladona, hashish, fly-agaric mushrooms (Amanita muscaria), and the skin of toads (which can contain DMT, a powerful hallucinogen). These ingredients would be combined in a hempseed-oil-based "flying ointment" that the witches would then administer vaginally using a special dildo. This was the "broomstick" by which these women were said to travel. | ” |
In the article Flying ointment claims like these are described as if they are true.
The article also contains stuff that appears to be WP:OR:
“ | Juxtaposing the Italian and Scandinavian accounts with the ecclesiastical condemnation of Regino of Prüm, a picture emerges of a 'journey' not literal, but of the drugged mind, involving the actual mounting of an animal, smeared with flying ointment - the contact of the naked witch's genitalia with the animal's back allowing the absorption of drugs, through the vaginal mucosa, and the physical sensation of riding on the back of an animal suggesting powerfully to the drugged mind of the witch a ride to the Sabbath through hallucinatory realms conjured up by the drug. | ” |
((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 03:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
One of these things is not like the others. Datura causes delirium, but is much more famous as a deadly poison. Datura-related murders and suicides are relatively commonplace. Voluntarily consuming datura is a very bad idea. Dimadick ( talk) 12:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I came to this as the target of these redirect discussions. Once again it is a cesspool of credulously described incidents, not to mention that a lot of the articles linked to have similar issues. Not sure what to do as there is simply too much to keep track of. Mangoe ( talk) 19:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
On my list of things to do is to remove all the items in that list which are sourced only to UFOlogical true believers. A compendium of news reports that use the "UFO" term may be okay (though suffering from FAKENEWS), but the vast majority of the pre-Kenneth Arnold events need to be excised, IMHO. jps ( talk) 10:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
So we have an agreement to move the page to List of purported UFO sightings. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Electrophonic hearing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A festival of WP:OR that wrongly conflates urban legends about people hearing radio stations via their tooth fillings, sounds created by meteors, Eskimo folklore about sounds made by the aurora, and speculation cited to "the hum" proponent John Dawes. An article on direct conversion of electromagnetic radiation into audible sound already exists at microwave auditory effect, so there really isn't any reason for this mess. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is the fringe theory problem: Electrophonic_hearing#Meteors says that electrophonic hearing can explain sounds capable of being heard by humans created by meteors, while Meteoroid#Acoustic_manifestations says that meteors emitting sounds capable of being heard by humans is an unproven theory. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 29#Template:Infobox alternative medicine, where the proposal is to merge it into ordinary medical infoboxes. Mangoe ( talk) 22:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Editors here might be interested in this discussion - Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/User Mute features - Roxy the dog. bark 09:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This is up for deletion and I have to say I've never heard of such a thing. Anyone else have any ideas about this fringe of the fringe? Mangoe ( talk) 15:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Publisher of occult books. It may be notable, but editors keep adding lists of notable books and periodicals that aren't. Note that although you wouldn't know it from the article, the Journal for the Academic Study of Magic no longer exists. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here after I added multiple issues banners to two articles on the subject of NLP that I consider Trojan Horses of Fringiness, and they were shortly after removed by another user. I'd appreciate input. Famous dog (c) 11:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably could be improved, subject of edit warring by a new editor. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Giving notice. Jytdog ( talk) 20:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Fringe documentary, editors pushing the qualifications of the "scientists and scholars". Doug Weller talk 20:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
One of the people interviewed is archaeologist Douglas Petrovich. He does not have an article yet, but he made minor news with his theory that the Proto-Consonantal Script is written in Hebrew, and that its inscriptions mention Asenath, Ahisamach, and Moses. For a sample of his writing see: http://asorblog.org/2017/04/10/hebrew-language-behind-worlds-first-alphabet/
Petrovich seems to believe in the actual historicity of Moses. Dimadick ( talk) 20:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
"Mark Taylor [9]: Freemasons And Illuminati Are Using A Special Frequency To Change DNA And Make People Hate Trump" [10] "The Illuminati, the Freemasons, all these people, their main goal is to change the DNA of man and they’re doing it through these frequencies.” "Taylor said that the media is broadcasting its audio at 440 Hz, which has been found to “damage your body organs” and “also changes your DNA, which is the goal of the Freemasons, the Illuminati; they want you part of that Illuminati bloodline.” Doug Weller talk 16:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Would some uninvolved editors take a look at the recent changes on this article and the conversation at Talk:Great Apostasy. I intentionally stay out of articles where there is current theological controversy real or imagined, but from what I can tell the recent sources that have been added are fringe sourcing concerning Catholic practice published by non-Catholic groups. I saw someone post looking for more eyes at WT:CATHOLIC, so I thought I would also put the word out here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about an article on Nassim Haramein that has popped up recently. He's presented as an 'autodidact theoretical physicist', but has no reputable work. His main claim to a peer-reviewed publication is this paper, which is published by these people. It's grade A bullshit ( here's a brief analysis) but his fans understandably don't see it that way. Here's an analysis of his next physics paper, and here's the one before. There hasn't been any formal scientific refutation (because it isn't science), so there's little to cite beyond blogs to to counter the increasingly impressive promotional material in the article. He has a following of very committed followers who are convinced he's the next Einstein - I haven't attempted to edit the page because I know exactly what will happen.
The fate of his previous Wikipedia page is here. I'm not sure what's the best thing to do about it. I wouldn't necessarily argue that he shouldn't have a page at this point, just that it should reflect reality. I think it needs some scientifically literate people watching it, because he does a very good job at presenting himself as an eccentric-but-competent physicist and it's far from immediately obvious to a sympathetic eye that the problems with his work are substantial rather than superficial. I've posted on WP:PHYS as well. Bobathon71 ( talk) 09:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that The Connected Universe is deleted, it might be worth looking at what you think about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (3rd nomination). jps ( talk) 01:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it time for a "fringe theories" WP:DELSORT category? It may be that the label is too contentious for delsort, so some other wording may be preferable. Posting some, but not all, relevant AfDs here is sometimes seen as canvassing. If it were a normal thing like a delsort category it may be less controversial (though I'm not looking to get into whether or not it should be controversial to begin with, really). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has left a message on the Talk page, they are obviously incompetent. - Roxy the dog. bark 16:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
An acupuncturist/yoga instructor claims to have found a method for postural awareness to treat back- and back-related pain, based upon her years of research across the world from which she concluded that ancient and some indigenous peoples knew how to move without pain. She's written a popular book and teaches her method in Silicon Valley. Her "research" is clearly fringe in my viewpoint, but the method and claims have gotten little notice from anyone that is actually familiar with the published research in the area. It's being promoted from the paleo- and chiropractic communities. Help would be appreciated getting this article up to NPOV/FRINGE/MEDRS. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Based on one of the external sources, I would be less concerned about medical claims and more concerned about historical claims.
Their idea about pre-industrialized people seems to be anything prior to Coco Chanel, without any reference to the Industrial Revolution (c. 1760-1840).
Non-Western people like the Portuguese? Where exactly do they think Portugal is? And laborers supposedly do not feel pain. Right.
Actual criticism by an anatomist and wider distribution of back pain than the method claims, are not mentioned in our article. Also evidence of back pain preceding the 20th century. Dimadick ( talk) 21:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I followed up on one of the few experts, a paleoanthropologist, that's commented on the Gokhale Method Talk:Gokhale_Method#Research_on_worldwide_distribution_of_back_pain, and found http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/priority_medicines/BP6_24LBP.pdf which states, "Low back pain occurs in similar proportions in all cultures, ". This looks to me to be a mainstream viewpoint that needs to be presented per FRINGE. How should this be done? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Richard William Howard Vyse, IP trying to keep a new fringe book in the article. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Sutton (criminologist) – a criminologist, but also known for fringe theory that Darwin was a plagiarist. The article itself could also use some eyes. – Joe ( talk) 12:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just wasted an hour of my time going further and further down a rabbit hole from new BLP David Shoemaker and ended up here. I need a rope. Could editors here please tell me, should I walk away, never to return to that universe within a universe. Is it like the Manifesto for wossname that keeps hurting my eyes? - Roxy the dog. bark 17:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been well-acquainted with Thelema for a while. Never had any trouble digging up critical secondary sources on it. I'm pretty sure it's due an article, though I'm not intimately familiar with our existing article and its sourcing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The latter is mostly OK, the former very dubious (and questionably notable, perhaps). Their relationship centers around The Book of Desolation, which the second is supposed to have from his purported father, and the first is supposedly the only other to have seen it. I am dubious (yellow). Mangoe ( talk) 22:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is another, by the same editor, featuring zero secondary sources and huge WP:COPYVIOs. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The arguments at an ongoing AfD about a creation science film suggest we may need an RfC to clarify whether WP:PSCI/ WP:NFRINGE apply only to articles about fringe theories or also to works about those theories. Many, if not most, of the participants seem to indicate that a film about creation science need only satisfy WP:NFILM and is not obliged to meet these other requirements. To me this seems pretty obvious, as all fringe theories are primarily argued via books, films, lectures, and other media, and it doesn't stop being a fringe theory by that one step of removal. Thoughts? (Omitted the AfD since I would be sympathetic to canvassing claims in this context). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of a proper deletion-sorting noticeboard, I thought it might be appropriate to note here that an article on Brazilian creationist Rodrigo Silva is up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Silva. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I wonder if more experienced editors than I could have a look at Racial hygiene . I appreciate this was a phrase that might have been used under some regimes notably nazi germany but there doesn't seem to be a common thread linking these instances together. It's not science though it might have been thought of as science. I'm submitting that by giving a wikipedia page to Racial hygiene we are taking it out of context and giving it undue weight. The article is not much more than a random collection of discredited ideas promoted down the ages by racists. We already have an article called Scientific racism which seems to more adequately account for the connections being drawn. I think that Racial hygiene should be deleted (or at the very least be renamed ). One cannot really put those two words together, in any context, and expect to be taken seriously. What do others think ? Hmcst1 ( talk) 11:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
This Tanzanian fellow seems to be a fringe idea promoter, and the article is at AfD here. Notability is dubious but very hard to search due to commonality of name. Could use a few eyes, especially if it survives. Mangoe ( talk) 12:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Fringe Theory of The Month:
The 90s TV show Saved by the Bell was actually Illuminati propaganda, and the theme song is a message directly from Satan. [13] This is, of course, ridiculous. We all know that the film Saving Christmas is the real Illuminati/Satanism propaganda... :)
For those who are not familiar with this fine example of high-quality television, here is a review of a random episode: [14] For the true masochist, here are some more: [15] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Saved by the BELL-(Ba’al). Also if you reverse and flip the word BELL it looks like 1138(1111)…
— Universe Sal
David Ferrie ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
If interested, see Talk:David Ferrie#RfC about the inclusion of allegations made by Victor Marchetti. - Location ( talk) 04:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Hurricane_Harvey#Should_the_article_include_mention_of_climate_connections.3F
Climate change and their relations to the increasing power of recent hurricanes has been being talk about at least as far back as Katrina, yet an editor is trying to say that it's a fringe theory.
2600:1017:B005:9E3B:A826:7531:6556:C27D ( talk) 01:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a fringe theory. There aren't any serious mainstream arguments that have been made against the actual claim that global warming contributes to stronger storms. Direct attribution of individual storms to global warming is problematic not because it's a fringe theory but because extrapolating single incidences from a population is hard to do. jps ( talk) 10:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The climate change coverage on Hurricane Harvey should not be about science, models, statistics, or noise. It should be about the political debate, the effect on and of Trump's denial policies (it is long established here on Wikipedia that climate denial is real and can be mentioned by name), and the coverage this is leading to in the US and international media. The coverage and the debate is huge. To ignore it in a Wikipedia article is clearly wrong. -- Nigelj ( talk) 11:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Environmental factors and Tropical cyclone#Climate change appear to be giving undue weight to a fringe theory. I have no problem with the fringe theory being mentioned, but the mainstream scientific view has been deleted and the fringe theory is being presented as being mainstream.
Here is the science:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Have not really anything to add, everything has been said.Well, it has ended up at ANI, but has anyone been compared to Hitler yet? Because if we keep going, it's inevitable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Isn't Hister another term for the Danube, deriving from Greek "Istros" (Ἴστρος) and Latin "Ister"? What does it have to do Hitler or anything Nazi-related? The Hitler family name is simply a variant spelling of "Hiedler". Dimadick ( talk) 19:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The simple fact that there is insufficient data to empirically prove a theory doesn't make it a fringe theory per se. Being based on established physical/climatological principles is sufficient. Otherwise the science of astrophysics would be one big fringe theory, because we haven't been there to measure that other solar systems care much about Newton or Einstein. PizzaMan ( ♨♨) 19:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Göbekli Tepe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
First it was Kate Mulgrew narrating Robert Sungenis's geocentrism movie. Then Patrick Stewart narrated the pseudophysics claims of (now deleted) Nassim Haramein. This morning I wake up to find George Takei posting about the fringe theory that a swarm of comets caused the Younger Dryas quoting none other than Graham Hancock as saying we will have a comet strike in 20 years. [23]
Sigh.
Just keep a look out in case the masses come in hoping to expose THA TRUTH.
jps ( talk) 12:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
A recent decipherment claim in the popular press is causing a debate at the article's talk page. The question seems to be what constitutes a notable decipherment claim? And does it matter that it's probably wrong?
Personally I don't think it matters much whether this particular claim winds up in the article or not, but the argument might set some kind of precedent for how the article should be handled going forward. ApLundell ( talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The AfD for "Mental Space Psychology" seems like it would be of interest to this community. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:The Exodus#Osman and Ellis where Ralph Ellis is being discussed and where I've been attacked for being racist or nationalist for asking how an Elsevier journal let through the article I mention above and Talk:The Exodus#Freund and Hengstenberg. I don't really want to carry on a discussion with the editor who still thinks I'm being nationalist and is pushing Ellis hard as a source (he's a fan) as that seems pointless, so it would be useful if others could chip in. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Amending_WP:NMEDIA_and_related_guidelines_to_accord_with_WP:PSCI.2FWP:NFRINGE -- Jytdog ( talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Major Arcana#Criticism very briefly presents the view that reading the tarot is mere mumbo jumbo, but counters this with the defence that it has had many adherents over the centuries and even now, adding that "the tarot is variously a tool for therapy, something that can facilitate the process of 'individuation', an instrument capable of 'heal[ing the] human psyche and lift[ing the] human spirit', even offering transcendence, transformation, and self-awareness." The latter claims are backed by references not to psychology but to what looks like more tarot-believer stuff. The thrust of this section looks like mere hogwash to me, but I imagine that the majority of those who care to contribute on tarot take tarot seriously (whereas I, who don't take it seriously, think about it for an average of perhaps one minute per year), and thus that an attempt to limit claims for efficacy to non-fringe sources would be overridden by a "consensus" of the energetic.
What to do? (Normally, when I see credulous material in a WP article about a silly subject, I think "Ugh" and pretend I haven't seen it.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
If interested, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#whowhatwhy.org. - Location ( talk) 22:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Geoscience Frontiers, published by Elsevier, has published Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks] by Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer, University of Waterloo, Department of Chemistry, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Palmer admits that he is not a climate scientist. [24] Ellis does not. [25] See The Climate Scandal] by him. What does this say about peer review? I see that peer review for this journal is entirely "under the responsibility of China University of Geosciences (Beijing)" and it seems to be their journal. [26] Is there a better place to post this? Doug Weller talk 13:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Beall's blog is down, but all the Frontiers journals are a joke. Talk to anyone at Elsevier and they will (if off the record) admit it. It's their skin in the game to make money off the predatory journal racket. jps ( talk) 10:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see this as a big deal. Less-than-stellar papers get published all the time. Next... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Roger Leir ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone who may not be a native English speaker needs WP:FRINGE and WP:RS explained to them. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
AfD discussion on this is degenerating. A large part of the problem is that searching books/scholarly stuff generates mountains of false hits due to juxtaposition; the idea itself is something of a conspiracy theory/political talking point. From what I can see it was pushed by one blogger and never really caught on, but others should take a look at it. Mangoe ( talk) 20:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Nicholas Kollerstrom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Just found someone changing the description of this conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier to "academic scientists" which I've now changed to "author and researcher". Might be worth a few more people adding it to their watchlist. He has done some science, 'tis true, but some of that looks dubious, other bits look ok. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Fringe theories in play since this person was an electo-acupuncturist and a credulous obituary is being used to air her notions. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
As an ingredient for use in traditional Chinese medicine, the article has had fring- and coi-related disputes for over five years. While the article could use help in other areas as well, the current dispute is over including the best MEDRS source we've been able to find, a 2012 systematic review, and if it is included, with what content: Talk:Velvet_antler#Uses. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tatelyle. I'd forgotten this. See also the 2010] ANI discussion. I'm wondering if a community ban is worthwhile or if it would just be unnecessary drama. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
An Ayurvedic treatment that is apparently a complete cure, where allopathic treatments fail. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled on Cautiousness because Cautious redirects there, and am at a loss for words. There are other, similar phrenology articles such as Secretiveness (phrenology). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Now up for discussion. Maybe there needs to be a category to roll up the contents, but I think this name is, how shall I put it, problematic. Mangoe ( talk) 20:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Mangoe: which other name do you suggest? Apokrif ( talk) 18:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
So this survived an AfD I launched, and what we're left with is a bit of a coat rack for her "Neuro-electric therapy" (NET) - which is a claimed way of curing addiction by administering electric shocks of different frequencies (different substances require different frequencies). Could probably use eyes.
Alexbrn (
talk) 12:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
More perspectives would help. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I must leave so cannot pursue this immediately, more eyes welcome. The issue is if it is appropriate to keep the pseudoscience label. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 06:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If this actually a topic (as distinct from herbalism?). The article does not define what a "medicinal plant" is meant to be, and much of it looks like OR to me. This article is a GA! (despite containing stuff like "the effects of taking a plant as medicine can be complex"). Alexbrn ( talk) 05:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
codeine, guaifenesin and medicinal cocaine which are undoubtedly plant-based medicines<- yes, but the article is not about "plant-based medicines" (though we have material on phytotherapy and Plant sources of anti-cancer agents), it is about "medicinal plants" - it doesn't define what this means, though in herbology AIUI the whole plant must be consumed according to the rules of the magicke. As it says "the effects of taking a plant as medicine can be complex" Alexbrn ( talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
So attempts to remove the OR or even tag the problems are getting pushed back. Perhaps the next step is a WP:GAR? Alexbrn ( talk) 20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You've done an amazing job, thank you very much. What an improvement. I've removed the fringe and OR tags from the article. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking more widely at the topic area, I see we also have:
which also has problems (e.g. "Samoa has had a great influence on western medicine when it comes to finding a cure for HIV/AIDS"). Alexbrn ( talk) 11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
An interesting new BLP. — Paleo Neonate – 22:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly, about a German former museum curator who became a creationist, and leave your opinions there. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This needs input from a FT POV. Mangoe ( talk) 22:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned that the current version of United States dollar describes it, without qualification, as a commodity currency. This seems to me like a very questionable statement occupying a prominent spot in a fairly important article. Virtually everything I've ever read agrees that it's fiat money. As far as I can determine, this is the opinion of one editor, 186.71.169.87 ( talk). This editor has been extremely active on the article and on its talk page, posting large walls of text in support of their position.
User Icewhiz has shown more patience than I would have in engaging the IP in discussion. Icewhiz has also quite properly opened up an RfC. There haven't been as many talk-page comments as I would have expected, though.
In my opinion, the IP's contributions qualify as both tendentious and fringe-y. Would anyone else like to comment? NewEnglandYankee ( talk) 00:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Protected for a week. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 19:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me as though the article is being edited by Scott Creighton [31] [32] using 4 IP addresses that geolocate in Glasgow where he lives. See the comments by these IPs on the article's talk page. There's a 5th IP, 72* who is in Virginia and I don't think that's Creighton. See Talk:Richard William Howard Vyse#The Great Pyramid Hoax where he is promoting his new book and acting as though he is different people. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a statement in the lead and more in the article about it being 5000 years old. It's possible the Springer source is an RS, I haven't checked it, but the others don't seem sufficient for such claims. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I saw this on my watchlist as a result of an un-related PROD. I'm unsure if there's a reason to delete Llywelyn, Prince of Cymru, but some claims are presented in Wikipedia's voice that should not be. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If discussion needs to continue, please do so at
Talk:Defensive gun use.
GMG
talk 19:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
Please someone fix Defensive gun use, or delete the page altogether. This is a hoax page run by fringe gun nuts claiming that there are 4 million defensive gun uses per year, despite actual statistics showing there are only 230 jusifitiable homicides with a firearm in the US annually. Editors at this page will not listen to reason or logic that it is impossible for there to be 4 million defensive gun uses per year, since that figure cannot logically exceed the number of total violent crimes prevented. HOAX ALERT!!!!! Logic Freebaser ( talk) 14:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Evidence also indicates that the current figure of 4.7 million was simply made up in the comments section, after the editors were called out on inventing a prior "33 million" figure. This page is so bad and worthless it should simply be deleted, and nothing would be lost. Logic Freebaser ( talk) 14:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That talk page is disturbing. A user complained about the 33 million figure, and the locals circled the wagons to try to talk them out of it. Then after the fact, one of them finally admits that the figure was unsourced! That article needs outside attention, I don't trust the current group of editors to handle it competently. Geogene ( talk) 14:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC) (ec) The second reference to the sentence with the 4 million claim does include a summary of a George Will column that stated there were 2 million a year, and the reference is specifically addressing DGUs, by name, in a scholarly format, published by a respectable source - it is a WP:RS (the cited reference, not necessarily the Will column). We don't use logic in evaluating reliable sources, and a claim doesn't need to be reasonable to be included, it just has to be noteworthy (not WP:UNDUE). While 4 million may have been made up, it is not off the mark by much. Whether this topic is notable enough is something that can be debated, as can specific content, but it certainly isn't a hoax, and you do yourself no favors using loaded language like this. Agricolae ( talk) 14:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
In his book, Hemenway dissects the 2.5 million gure from a variety of angles and, by extension, the NRA’s own non-lethal self-defense claims for rearms. He concludes, “It is clear that the claim of 2.5 million annual self-defense gun uses is a vast overestimate” and asks, “But what can account for it?” As he details in his book, the main culprit is the “telescoping and...false positive problem” that derives from the very limited number of respondents claiming a self-defense gun use, “a matter of misclassi cation that is well known to medical epidemiologists.” http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf It is well known that figures in the millions are a hoax. It is not possible for there to be millions of legitimate defensive gun uses per year in the US when the FBI claims only 1.2 million crimes attempted annually, 63 percent of which are simple assault. It is not unreasonable to demand that our claims be logically possible. Logic Freebaser ( talk) 14:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The article has been protected, the socks blocked (without a checkuser that I can see), and at least a few more editors are more aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
|
I found the following to be well worth reading:
https://ncse.com/library-resource/my-favorite-pseudoscience
Key quote:
"Those of us concerned about pseudoscience and its attractiveness to the public would be well advised to consider the emotional needs that are met by beliefs in ESP, alien abduction, astrology, psychic powers, and the like, and address them as well as criticizing the poor science invoked by supporters to support the pseudoscience. We skeptics sometimes feel that the people we are trying to reach are impenetrable — and some of them are! The public is divided into 3 parts: confirmed believers, confirmed skeptics, and a much larger middle group that does not know much science, but does not have the emotional commitments that might lead it to embrace a pseudoscientific view... I have found that I am most effective with that large middle group, and hardly ever effective with the true believers; I suspect most skeptics have had similar experiences. But after all, reaching that large middle group is also the goal of the proponents of pseudoscience. If, like most skeptics, you feel that we would all be better off with more science and less pseudoscience, then that is where we should be focusing our energies, rather than fruitlessly arguing with people who will never agree with us. But to reach that group that is potentially reachable, we must also be aware that a scientific explanation is necessary but not sufficient to change someone’s mind; if I have learned anything from over 25 years in the skeptic business, it is that it is necessary to deal with the emotional reasons that make our species susceptible to these beliefs, as well as the scientific."
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
"emotional needs that are met by beliefs in ESP, alien abduction, astrology, psychic powers"
While astrology has been with us for several millennia now and probably reflects our beliefs about destiny, I have trouble figuring out what emotional need is fulfilled by the alien abduction tales of the 20th century. Being abducted, restrained, and abused by powerful strangers does not sound like much of a wish fulfillment narrative. Dimadick ( talk) 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Need more eyes on Functionalism (philosophy of mind). Looks like an editor is trying to insert some serious woo about computers, plus NPOV comments like changing "as an alternative to the identity theory of mind and behaviorism." to "as an alternative to the increasingly unpopular theories of behaviorism and identity theory of mind."
The same editor has been trying to do something similar at Talk:Theistic science#Pseudoscience. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The sealioning [34] has started at Talk:Functionalism (philosophy of mind), just as happened at Talk:Theistic science#Pseudoscience. Can I get a little help, please? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
William M. Branham was a Pentecostal evangelist and faith healer in the 1940s and 1950s. The article was previously something of a hagiography, and there has been a lot of back-and-forth addition and removal of text over the last few years, with faithful adherents to the beliefs Branham preached frequently disagreeing with editors who are more focused on WP:NPOV and related policies. Recently, the article went through a GA review and it is currently a pretty neutral piece. (There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page, but it's mostly held in a civil tone.)
However, I have a couple of questions for the good regulars of this board.
That Branham claimed to be able to perform miracles is sourced, and that info needs to be in the article, of course. And despite having been accused of not assuming good faith, I certainly believe that even the editors who would prefer it if the article said that the miracles were real genuinely feel that they are acting in the encyclopedia's best interests; it might just be difficult to reconcile that particular religious belief with Wikipedia's notions of neutrality. Some more eyes on the article from uninvolved editors would be a nice thing, because as I say this has been an ongoing issue for a number of years (I have not been involved at all until very recently, and had no part in the huge cleanup that led to the successful GA review). -- bonadea contributions talk 20:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
We should attribute such claims, other then that they are sourced. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Swami Nithyananda could use some additional watchlisters. It is subject to vandalism by haters of the subject (and attempts to inject dubious scandal material), yet both whitewashing and promotional FRINGE claims by Nithyananda's followers (who also inject a lot of PoV wording). Almost all of it from both sides is by anon IP editors. I think longterm auto-confirmed protection is probably in order, as well as regular examination for non-encyclopedic material. I've done a minor editing pass on it today to clean up some of the wording, and flagged primary and self-published sources (one is okay for one claim, two are not). There's another source, some "Indian Book of World Records" site that is probably unreliable and is being used as a source for a claim that something paranormal actually happened. It's almost certain that the source is being misrepresented or is itself a bunch of WP:UGC. I also know someone among his adherents, and through her have reached out to more of them with a "mini-tutorial" on how to do Wikipedia properly. I have no idea if this will have any effect. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
PS: The "It was reported that ..." matter in the thread above this one also strongly applies to this case. I generally avoid topics like this, so I'm not sure what the exact consensus is on how to treat press reports that appear to support claims of the paranormal, especially when they come from communities of people largely in the same religion, i.e. apt to believe and repeat the claims on a faith basis. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
PPS: One of his people did get back to me, and the short version of their side of the story is that they know that some followers have posted non-neutral stuff and don't mind its removal, but are concerned about defamatory claims being inserted based on "news" that is tabloid or fake news that's actually paid for. India has a lot of papers that print what people pay them to, he says. Thus there's little news coverage of Nithyananda's organization, other than what monied detractors are willing to pay for. Said that they have several ongoing defamation lawsuits against some of these outfits. I said they should mention that in questioning reliability of "sources" that they are suing; bring it up at the talk page or at WP:RSN if necessary. The court stuff should be public record both as to filings as as to results. For my part, I remain concerned about the FRINGE stuff that followers keep inserting ("news" reports about miraculous stuff, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, there's a new user trying to change the content of Ann Louise Gittleman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as they believe it's a BLP issue. Could someone take a look at it please. Putting this here as the article is about Alternative medicine. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, when criticism is made against people we are supposed to provide their responses.not necessarily. It however depends on the subject matter: policies deal differently with pseudoscience and sexual orientation for instance (or gender identification). — Paleo Neonate – 08:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Shag Harbour UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone has added a section called Pre Crash Aerial Phenomenon. Only ufologists believe something actually "crashed" in Shag Harbor (such as this non-notable ufo book, however, its POV of primary sources (various unrelated reports of people who say they saw lights in the sky) is being pushed at the article [37]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm wondering if we have a resident UFO debunker who might want to check the sourcing for this. I was watching "UFOs: The Lost Evidence" on AHC earlier and there was a brief discussion of Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident which in typical fashion of UFO programs featured snippets of all sorts of credentialed peopled (e.g. people who worked for the FAA and former military personnel with secret clearances, etc.) confirming that there was a UFO. If this skeptical website is to be believed, the pilot had a history of reporting UFOs and told things to the press that he didn't tell the FAA or are not confirmed by the flight recordings, and the two other members of the flight crew did not see anything remarkable. The article reiterates the claims and allegations of various players as fact (e.g. meeting in which individuals were instructed not to talk to anyone, etc.).- Location ( talk) 19:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia covers it up,
therefore aliens.
Apparent fringe and/or COI promotion of Kedar Joshi, as pointed out by LordQwert at the Joshi article AfD nomination. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 17:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Radiohalo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not exactly sure whether my edits on this have solved all the problems with this article. Robert V. Gentry might also deserve a perusal. jps ( talk) 21:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Ellis (author) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.— Paleo Neonate – 05:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hoax? — Paleo Neonate – 01:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Looks like some original research has made it into this article and using unreliable sources or at the least giving undue weight. Anyone feel like taking a look. MrBill3 ( talk) 16:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 57 | |
---|---|
Other names | Excited delirium syndrome, agitated delirium |
Specialty | Emergency medicine, psychiatry |
Symptoms | Agitation, delirium, sweating [1] |
Complications | Rhabdomyolysis, high blood potassium [1] |
Causes | Drug use, mental illness [1] |
Differential diagnosis | Low blood sugar, heat stroke, thyrotoxicosis, paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disorder [1] |
Treatment | Sedation, cooling, intravenous fluids [1] |
Medication | Ketamine or midazolam and haloperidol [2] |
Prognosis | Risk of death < 10% [1] |
Frequency | Unknown [1] |
Excited delirium is a controversial diagnosis that is not recognized by either of the two official bodies that recognize somatic and psychiatric diagnoses. A small group has been changing the wording to be weaselly as if it has a secret alternative name, that is not revealed. I believe all fringe medical diagnoses should mention that they are unrecognized in the first paragraph with the non-weasel wording. Once it is recognized, we can add the code it has been assigned in the infobox. Currently the article looks just like an official diagnosis article. What do you think? You can see other alternative medicine diagnoses here: Category:Alternative diagnoses. -- RAN ( talk) 15:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A couple of things
Anyway have clarified the wording. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
References
I wonder if the lead should more clearly explain that this sexual inversion hypothesis is not mainstream or the like. Also, when reading the reception section, it appears to suggests that it is. Possibly that someone more familiar with the humanities and sexuality, LGBT studies, etc, should look at it. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 11:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This is up for deletion (see here) but may well survive. It is a focus of woo, as indicated by the very first edit; the talk page (once you get past the mess someone made of it at some point) is a study. There is apparently at least one source claiming that the whole thing is something of a scam on gullible westerners. I'm surprised it hasn't shown up here earlier but it could use our ministrations. Mangoe ( talk) 16:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Since this section was re-written several years ago, it contains some surprisingly counter-intuitive statements, like this one:
The wide ecological diversity typical of Mediterranean Europe is predominantly based on human behavior, as it is and has been closely related human usage patterns.
I'm not sure if this is a mainstream theory or a fringe theory, but it needs some additional fact-checking. Is it true that human settlements in the Mediterranean region have actually increased the region's biodiversity (instead of decreasing it?) Jarble ( talk) 19:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In this discussion Talk:Tyler_Henry#Merger we´ve talked ourselves into merging Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry into Tyler Henry, medium of Kardashians. Anyone feel up to it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Can we use a book written by a psychologist and published by a white nationalist press as a source for history?. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 04:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
"unusual health-related incidents" ...temporary or permanent hearing loss, memory loss, and nausea."
I don't get why is this unusual.
My first question would not be of what advanced weapon was used hear. It would be what were these people eating and drinking. Dimadick ( talk) 15:02, 20 October 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. |
Gary Renard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Notable enough for a WP:FRINGEBLP? WP:AUTHOR? WP:GNG? Do we yet know who in the vast WP:Walled Garden of A Course in Miracles community is notable and who isn't? How do we decide? (At least Wayne Dyer did a huge number of PBS specials). jps ( talk) 15:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
jps ( talk) 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This is of course (this is a general reply, so not indented as a reply to one user) one of the peculiarities of our concept of notability, a book can be more notable then the author (and yes I have even created just such a page). It seems a bit counter intuitive, but it is how Wikipedia functions. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I've seen a deletion discussion that lopsided in favor of delete be ruled "no consensus" before. I guess I could ask for a WP:DRV. If the closer would just look at the arguments in the AfD it would be clear that they ran along the lines of A:Here's a lot of sources. B: None of them are usable according to WP:FRIND, WP:RS, etc. A: Yes they are! B: Explain. A: (silence). Isn't that a fair summary of the discussion? jps ( talk) 03:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this represents a breakdown of analytical capabilities. The WP:ONUS is on those who believe that compliant sources for article exist. That simple standard was not met. jps ( talk) 09:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Can we please leave it now, the AFD is over the decision was keep. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
THIS IS A TOTALLY NEUTRAL NOTICE ABOUT A 4TH AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (4th nomination). Please share this with anyone and everyone who may be able to shed light on the subject. Do not construe this message in any way as a canvassing. Much Love. jps ( talk) 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The AfD discussion for morphogenetic resonance seems pertinent to this Noticeboard. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
See their comments when reverted at User talk:120.144.146.136. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Eyes and input welcome at WP:FRINGE and Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Recent edits by 76.11.94.233. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 00:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I typically removed dubious or fringe external links by citing WP:ELNO #2; however, I am wondering if this is typically done with similar sources that appear in the the "Further reading" section of articles. For example, the article on Allen Dulles includes David Talbot's biography of Dulles which states that Dulles arranged to have Lee Harvey Oswald framed as the sole assassin of JFK, then JFK's assassins killed RFK, too. My own view is that sources that mix reliable and unreliable material shouldn't be included (perhaps via Wikipedia:Further reading#Reliable) but I'm wondering what others think. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 00:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
"I understand our present view of human history is completely different from what we are proposing, but based on these ancient papyri we must consider the possibility that dinosaurs may have lived amongst ancient Egyptians and were possibly tamed to carry the huge blocks that compose the pyramids." [2] – Professor Nabir Al-Sammud, Egyptologist
Bonus: Fringe theories that have books on them on Amazon:
A Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory [3] [4]
Olympic & Titanic [5]
Enjoy! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be a way to bring back content from Pranic healing which was stubbed out after a drawn-out battle with fringe-theory promoters a few years back. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
A mess and at the moment a WP:BLP violation I think. Might get more unhelpful attention after claims of crisis actors at the Unite the Right rally. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Talk:Jesus#Failed verification. The content requires a source to verify the claim. QuackGuru ( talk) 11:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
"Reformist" cardinals in a cabal against Benedict XVI? The article seems possibly OK now but I'm a bit unfamiliar with the material; there's a category discussion about the membership of this group. Mangoe ( talk) 19:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Possibly the worst thing about the entry is the "Team Bergoglio" section, which tries to elevate a journalist's tag name for (once again) a group of like-minded individuals into a cabal, whose purported activities seem to be nothing of note and certainly nothing as serious as what is alleged. I added the disclaimer by the four named cardinals, without which this was very much in violation of WP:BLP, and even with that disclaimer I imagine. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Could use some eyes. An editor working for the two... "inventors" of this method just got brought to COIN. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 09:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
An article was recently published online ( doi: 10.1016/j.grj.2017.08.001) from the journal GeoResJ that is peer reviewed and concludes most of global warming is natural and not man-made. It has attracted attention from the conservative media and criticism from scientists. I have written a section on it at Jennifer Marohasy#2017 GeoResJ manuscript as Marohasy was the lead author. I am reporting my addition here for several reasons:
This is likely to continue to develop. The graph produced by Gavin Schmidt and posted on twitter is only 3 days old and would be good for the article, if it is available. I have also seen little coverage of the scientific community's response, except from the Guardian article by Graham Readfearn, but it seems inevitable to me that there will be more.
Any and all comments, advice, criticisms, etc, welcome. EdChem ( talk) 07:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It is clear that the correlation is poorneed rectification. The section is perhaps giving too much weight to news media and too little on scientists. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Another fringe article. Someone keeps trying to add a Christian Pastor and Bible teacher named Kubo to the lead. I see we use him as a source and he's pushed in "Further reading". I'm not sure who the Mcleod is in the source and further reading unless it's a Scottish 19th century author who supported this idea and is mentioned in the source, but he wasn't writing books in the late 20th century. One of the publishers, Tokuma Shoten, is an entertainment publisher. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The author is Nicholas McLeod, a 19th century fringe writer, who is sometimes credited as "Norman". Dimadick ( talk) 12:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Michael Pollan wrote stuff like:
“ | Their potion recipes called for such things as datura, opium poppies, belladona, hashish, fly-agaric mushrooms (Amanita muscaria), and the skin of toads (which can contain DMT, a powerful hallucinogen). These ingredients would be combined in a hempseed-oil-based "flying ointment" that the witches would then administer vaginally using a special dildo. This was the "broomstick" by which these women were said to travel. | ” |
In the article Flying ointment claims like these are described as if they are true.
The article also contains stuff that appears to be WP:OR:
“ | Juxtaposing the Italian and Scandinavian accounts with the ecclesiastical condemnation of Regino of Prüm, a picture emerges of a 'journey' not literal, but of the drugged mind, involving the actual mounting of an animal, smeared with flying ointment - the contact of the naked witch's genitalia with the animal's back allowing the absorption of drugs, through the vaginal mucosa, and the physical sensation of riding on the back of an animal suggesting powerfully to the drugged mind of the witch a ride to the Sabbath through hallucinatory realms conjured up by the drug. | ” |
((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 03:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
One of these things is not like the others. Datura causes delirium, but is much more famous as a deadly poison. Datura-related murders and suicides are relatively commonplace. Voluntarily consuming datura is a very bad idea. Dimadick ( talk) 12:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I came to this as the target of these redirect discussions. Once again it is a cesspool of credulously described incidents, not to mention that a lot of the articles linked to have similar issues. Not sure what to do as there is simply too much to keep track of. Mangoe ( talk) 19:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
On my list of things to do is to remove all the items in that list which are sourced only to UFOlogical true believers. A compendium of news reports that use the "UFO" term may be okay (though suffering from FAKENEWS), but the vast majority of the pre-Kenneth Arnold events need to be excised, IMHO. jps ( talk) 10:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
So we have an agreement to move the page to List of purported UFO sightings. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Electrophonic hearing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A festival of WP:OR that wrongly conflates urban legends about people hearing radio stations via their tooth fillings, sounds created by meteors, Eskimo folklore about sounds made by the aurora, and speculation cited to "the hum" proponent John Dawes. An article on direct conversion of electromagnetic radiation into audible sound already exists at microwave auditory effect, so there really isn't any reason for this mess. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is the fringe theory problem: Electrophonic_hearing#Meteors says that electrophonic hearing can explain sounds capable of being heard by humans created by meteors, while Meteoroid#Acoustic_manifestations says that meteors emitting sounds capable of being heard by humans is an unproven theory. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 29#Template:Infobox alternative medicine, where the proposal is to merge it into ordinary medical infoboxes. Mangoe ( talk) 22:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Editors here might be interested in this discussion - Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/User Mute features - Roxy the dog. bark 09:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This is up for deletion and I have to say I've never heard of such a thing. Anyone else have any ideas about this fringe of the fringe? Mangoe ( talk) 15:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Publisher of occult books. It may be notable, but editors keep adding lists of notable books and periodicals that aren't. Note that although you wouldn't know it from the article, the Journal for the Academic Study of Magic no longer exists. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here after I added multiple issues banners to two articles on the subject of NLP that I consider Trojan Horses of Fringiness, and they were shortly after removed by another user. I'd appreciate input. Famous dog (c) 11:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably could be improved, subject of edit warring by a new editor. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Giving notice. Jytdog ( talk) 20:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Fringe documentary, editors pushing the qualifications of the "scientists and scholars". Doug Weller talk 20:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
One of the people interviewed is archaeologist Douglas Petrovich. He does not have an article yet, but he made minor news with his theory that the Proto-Consonantal Script is written in Hebrew, and that its inscriptions mention Asenath, Ahisamach, and Moses. For a sample of his writing see: http://asorblog.org/2017/04/10/hebrew-language-behind-worlds-first-alphabet/
Petrovich seems to believe in the actual historicity of Moses. Dimadick ( talk) 20:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
"Mark Taylor [9]: Freemasons And Illuminati Are Using A Special Frequency To Change DNA And Make People Hate Trump" [10] "The Illuminati, the Freemasons, all these people, their main goal is to change the DNA of man and they’re doing it through these frequencies.” "Taylor said that the media is broadcasting its audio at 440 Hz, which has been found to “damage your body organs” and “also changes your DNA, which is the goal of the Freemasons, the Illuminati; they want you part of that Illuminati bloodline.” Doug Weller talk 16:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Would some uninvolved editors take a look at the recent changes on this article and the conversation at Talk:Great Apostasy. I intentionally stay out of articles where there is current theological controversy real or imagined, but from what I can tell the recent sources that have been added are fringe sourcing concerning Catholic practice published by non-Catholic groups. I saw someone post looking for more eyes at WT:CATHOLIC, so I thought I would also put the word out here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about an article on Nassim Haramein that has popped up recently. He's presented as an 'autodidact theoretical physicist', but has no reputable work. His main claim to a peer-reviewed publication is this paper, which is published by these people. It's grade A bullshit ( here's a brief analysis) but his fans understandably don't see it that way. Here's an analysis of his next physics paper, and here's the one before. There hasn't been any formal scientific refutation (because it isn't science), so there's little to cite beyond blogs to to counter the increasingly impressive promotional material in the article. He has a following of very committed followers who are convinced he's the next Einstein - I haven't attempted to edit the page because I know exactly what will happen.
The fate of his previous Wikipedia page is here. I'm not sure what's the best thing to do about it. I wouldn't necessarily argue that he shouldn't have a page at this point, just that it should reflect reality. I think it needs some scientifically literate people watching it, because he does a very good job at presenting himself as an eccentric-but-competent physicist and it's far from immediately obvious to a sympathetic eye that the problems with his work are substantial rather than superficial. I've posted on WP:PHYS as well. Bobathon71 ( talk) 09:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that The Connected Universe is deleted, it might be worth looking at what you think about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (3rd nomination). jps ( talk) 01:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it time for a "fringe theories" WP:DELSORT category? It may be that the label is too contentious for delsort, so some other wording may be preferable. Posting some, but not all, relevant AfDs here is sometimes seen as canvassing. If it were a normal thing like a delsort category it may be less controversial (though I'm not looking to get into whether or not it should be controversial to begin with, really). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has left a message on the Talk page, they are obviously incompetent. - Roxy the dog. bark 16:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
An acupuncturist/yoga instructor claims to have found a method for postural awareness to treat back- and back-related pain, based upon her years of research across the world from which she concluded that ancient and some indigenous peoples knew how to move without pain. She's written a popular book and teaches her method in Silicon Valley. Her "research" is clearly fringe in my viewpoint, but the method and claims have gotten little notice from anyone that is actually familiar with the published research in the area. It's being promoted from the paleo- and chiropractic communities. Help would be appreciated getting this article up to NPOV/FRINGE/MEDRS. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Based on one of the external sources, I would be less concerned about medical claims and more concerned about historical claims.
Their idea about pre-industrialized people seems to be anything prior to Coco Chanel, without any reference to the Industrial Revolution (c. 1760-1840).
Non-Western people like the Portuguese? Where exactly do they think Portugal is? And laborers supposedly do not feel pain. Right.
Actual criticism by an anatomist and wider distribution of back pain than the method claims, are not mentioned in our article. Also evidence of back pain preceding the 20th century. Dimadick ( talk) 21:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I followed up on one of the few experts, a paleoanthropologist, that's commented on the Gokhale Method Talk:Gokhale_Method#Research_on_worldwide_distribution_of_back_pain, and found http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/priority_medicines/BP6_24LBP.pdf which states, "Low back pain occurs in similar proportions in all cultures, ". This looks to me to be a mainstream viewpoint that needs to be presented per FRINGE. How should this be done? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Richard William Howard Vyse, IP trying to keep a new fringe book in the article. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Sutton (criminologist) – a criminologist, but also known for fringe theory that Darwin was a plagiarist. The article itself could also use some eyes. – Joe ( talk) 12:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just wasted an hour of my time going further and further down a rabbit hole from new BLP David Shoemaker and ended up here. I need a rope. Could editors here please tell me, should I walk away, never to return to that universe within a universe. Is it like the Manifesto for wossname that keeps hurting my eyes? - Roxy the dog. bark 17:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been well-acquainted with Thelema for a while. Never had any trouble digging up critical secondary sources on it. I'm pretty sure it's due an article, though I'm not intimately familiar with our existing article and its sourcing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The latter is mostly OK, the former very dubious (and questionably notable, perhaps). Their relationship centers around The Book of Desolation, which the second is supposed to have from his purported father, and the first is supposedly the only other to have seen it. I am dubious (yellow). Mangoe ( talk) 22:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is another, by the same editor, featuring zero secondary sources and huge WP:COPYVIOs. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The arguments at an ongoing AfD about a creation science film suggest we may need an RfC to clarify whether WP:PSCI/ WP:NFRINGE apply only to articles about fringe theories or also to works about those theories. Many, if not most, of the participants seem to indicate that a film about creation science need only satisfy WP:NFILM and is not obliged to meet these other requirements. To me this seems pretty obvious, as all fringe theories are primarily argued via books, films, lectures, and other media, and it doesn't stop being a fringe theory by that one step of removal. Thoughts? (Omitted the AfD since I would be sympathetic to canvassing claims in this context). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of a proper deletion-sorting noticeboard, I thought it might be appropriate to note here that an article on Brazilian creationist Rodrigo Silva is up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Silva. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I wonder if more experienced editors than I could have a look at Racial hygiene . I appreciate this was a phrase that might have been used under some regimes notably nazi germany but there doesn't seem to be a common thread linking these instances together. It's not science though it might have been thought of as science. I'm submitting that by giving a wikipedia page to Racial hygiene we are taking it out of context and giving it undue weight. The article is not much more than a random collection of discredited ideas promoted down the ages by racists. We already have an article called Scientific racism which seems to more adequately account for the connections being drawn. I think that Racial hygiene should be deleted (or at the very least be renamed ). One cannot really put those two words together, in any context, and expect to be taken seriously. What do others think ? Hmcst1 ( talk) 11:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
This Tanzanian fellow seems to be a fringe idea promoter, and the article is at AfD here. Notability is dubious but very hard to search due to commonality of name. Could use a few eyes, especially if it survives. Mangoe ( talk) 12:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Fringe Theory of The Month:
The 90s TV show Saved by the Bell was actually Illuminati propaganda, and the theme song is a message directly from Satan. [13] This is, of course, ridiculous. We all know that the film Saving Christmas is the real Illuminati/Satanism propaganda... :)
For those who are not familiar with this fine example of high-quality television, here is a review of a random episode: [14] For the true masochist, here are some more: [15] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Saved by the BELL-(Ba’al). Also if you reverse and flip the word BELL it looks like 1138(1111)…
— Universe Sal
David Ferrie ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
If interested, see Talk:David Ferrie#RfC about the inclusion of allegations made by Victor Marchetti. - Location ( talk) 04:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Hurricane_Harvey#Should_the_article_include_mention_of_climate_connections.3F
Climate change and their relations to the increasing power of recent hurricanes has been being talk about at least as far back as Katrina, yet an editor is trying to say that it's a fringe theory.
2600:1017:B005:9E3B:A826:7531:6556:C27D ( talk) 01:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a fringe theory. There aren't any serious mainstream arguments that have been made against the actual claim that global warming contributes to stronger storms. Direct attribution of individual storms to global warming is problematic not because it's a fringe theory but because extrapolating single incidences from a population is hard to do. jps ( talk) 10:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The climate change coverage on Hurricane Harvey should not be about science, models, statistics, or noise. It should be about the political debate, the effect on and of Trump's denial policies (it is long established here on Wikipedia that climate denial is real and can be mentioned by name), and the coverage this is leading to in the US and international media. The coverage and the debate is huge. To ignore it in a Wikipedia article is clearly wrong. -- Nigelj ( talk) 11:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Environmental factors and Tropical cyclone#Climate change appear to be giving undue weight to a fringe theory. I have no problem with the fringe theory being mentioned, but the mainstream scientific view has been deleted and the fringe theory is being presented as being mainstream.
Here is the science:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Have not really anything to add, everything has been said.Well, it has ended up at ANI, but has anyone been compared to Hitler yet? Because if we keep going, it's inevitable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Isn't Hister another term for the Danube, deriving from Greek "Istros" (Ἴστρος) and Latin "Ister"? What does it have to do Hitler or anything Nazi-related? The Hitler family name is simply a variant spelling of "Hiedler". Dimadick ( talk) 19:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The simple fact that there is insufficient data to empirically prove a theory doesn't make it a fringe theory per se. Being based on established physical/climatological principles is sufficient. Otherwise the science of astrophysics would be one big fringe theory, because we haven't been there to measure that other solar systems care much about Newton or Einstein. PizzaMan ( ♨♨) 19:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Göbekli Tepe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
First it was Kate Mulgrew narrating Robert Sungenis's geocentrism movie. Then Patrick Stewart narrated the pseudophysics claims of (now deleted) Nassim Haramein. This morning I wake up to find George Takei posting about the fringe theory that a swarm of comets caused the Younger Dryas quoting none other than Graham Hancock as saying we will have a comet strike in 20 years. [23]
Sigh.
Just keep a look out in case the masses come in hoping to expose THA TRUTH.
jps ( talk) 12:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
A recent decipherment claim in the popular press is causing a debate at the article's talk page. The question seems to be what constitutes a notable decipherment claim? And does it matter that it's probably wrong?
Personally I don't think it matters much whether this particular claim winds up in the article or not, but the argument might set some kind of precedent for how the article should be handled going forward. ApLundell ( talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The AfD for "Mental Space Psychology" seems like it would be of interest to this community. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:The Exodus#Osman and Ellis where Ralph Ellis is being discussed and where I've been attacked for being racist or nationalist for asking how an Elsevier journal let through the article I mention above and Talk:The Exodus#Freund and Hengstenberg. I don't really want to carry on a discussion with the editor who still thinks I'm being nationalist and is pushing Ellis hard as a source (he's a fan) as that seems pointless, so it would be useful if others could chip in. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Amending_WP:NMEDIA_and_related_guidelines_to_accord_with_WP:PSCI.2FWP:NFRINGE -- Jytdog ( talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Major Arcana#Criticism very briefly presents the view that reading the tarot is mere mumbo jumbo, but counters this with the defence that it has had many adherents over the centuries and even now, adding that "the tarot is variously a tool for therapy, something that can facilitate the process of 'individuation', an instrument capable of 'heal[ing the] human psyche and lift[ing the] human spirit', even offering transcendence, transformation, and self-awareness." The latter claims are backed by references not to psychology but to what looks like more tarot-believer stuff. The thrust of this section looks like mere hogwash to me, but I imagine that the majority of those who care to contribute on tarot take tarot seriously (whereas I, who don't take it seriously, think about it for an average of perhaps one minute per year), and thus that an attempt to limit claims for efficacy to non-fringe sources would be overridden by a "consensus" of the energetic.
What to do? (Normally, when I see credulous material in a WP article about a silly subject, I think "Ugh" and pretend I haven't seen it.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
If interested, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#whowhatwhy.org. - Location ( talk) 22:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Geoscience Frontiers, published by Elsevier, has published Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks] by Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer, University of Waterloo, Department of Chemistry, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Palmer admits that he is not a climate scientist. [24] Ellis does not. [25] See The Climate Scandal] by him. What does this say about peer review? I see that peer review for this journal is entirely "under the responsibility of China University of Geosciences (Beijing)" and it seems to be their journal. [26] Is there a better place to post this? Doug Weller talk 13:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Beall's blog is down, but all the Frontiers journals are a joke. Talk to anyone at Elsevier and they will (if off the record) admit it. It's their skin in the game to make money off the predatory journal racket. jps ( talk) 10:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see this as a big deal. Less-than-stellar papers get published all the time. Next... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Roger Leir ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone who may not be a native English speaker needs WP:FRINGE and WP:RS explained to them. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
AfD discussion on this is degenerating. A large part of the problem is that searching books/scholarly stuff generates mountains of false hits due to juxtaposition; the idea itself is something of a conspiracy theory/political talking point. From what I can see it was pushed by one blogger and never really caught on, but others should take a look at it. Mangoe ( talk) 20:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Nicholas Kollerstrom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Just found someone changing the description of this conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier to "academic scientists" which I've now changed to "author and researcher". Might be worth a few more people adding it to their watchlist. He has done some science, 'tis true, but some of that looks dubious, other bits look ok. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Fringe theories in play since this person was an electo-acupuncturist and a credulous obituary is being used to air her notions. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
As an ingredient for use in traditional Chinese medicine, the article has had fring- and coi-related disputes for over five years. While the article could use help in other areas as well, the current dispute is over including the best MEDRS source we've been able to find, a 2012 systematic review, and if it is included, with what content: Talk:Velvet_antler#Uses. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tatelyle. I'd forgotten this. See also the 2010] ANI discussion. I'm wondering if a community ban is worthwhile or if it would just be unnecessary drama. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
An Ayurvedic treatment that is apparently a complete cure, where allopathic treatments fail. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled on Cautiousness because Cautious redirects there, and am at a loss for words. There are other, similar phrenology articles such as Secretiveness (phrenology). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Now up for discussion. Maybe there needs to be a category to roll up the contents, but I think this name is, how shall I put it, problematic. Mangoe ( talk) 20:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Mangoe: which other name do you suggest? Apokrif ( talk) 18:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
So this survived an AfD I launched, and what we're left with is a bit of a coat rack for her "Neuro-electric therapy" (NET) - which is a claimed way of curing addiction by administering electric shocks of different frequencies (different substances require different frequencies). Could probably use eyes.
Alexbrn (
talk) 12:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
More perspectives would help. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I must leave so cannot pursue this immediately, more eyes welcome. The issue is if it is appropriate to keep the pseudoscience label. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 06:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If this actually a topic (as distinct from herbalism?). The article does not define what a "medicinal plant" is meant to be, and much of it looks like OR to me. This article is a GA! (despite containing stuff like "the effects of taking a plant as medicine can be complex"). Alexbrn ( talk) 05:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
codeine, guaifenesin and medicinal cocaine which are undoubtedly plant-based medicines<- yes, but the article is not about "plant-based medicines" (though we have material on phytotherapy and Plant sources of anti-cancer agents), it is about "medicinal plants" - it doesn't define what this means, though in herbology AIUI the whole plant must be consumed according to the rules of the magicke. As it says "the effects of taking a plant as medicine can be complex" Alexbrn ( talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
So attempts to remove the OR or even tag the problems are getting pushed back. Perhaps the next step is a WP:GAR? Alexbrn ( talk) 20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You've done an amazing job, thank you very much. What an improvement. I've removed the fringe and OR tags from the article. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking more widely at the topic area, I see we also have:
which also has problems (e.g. "Samoa has had a great influence on western medicine when it comes to finding a cure for HIV/AIDS"). Alexbrn ( talk) 11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
An interesting new BLP. — Paleo Neonate – 22:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly, about a German former museum curator who became a creationist, and leave your opinions there. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This needs input from a FT POV. Mangoe ( talk) 22:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned that the current version of United States dollar describes it, without qualification, as a commodity currency. This seems to me like a very questionable statement occupying a prominent spot in a fairly important article. Virtually everything I've ever read agrees that it's fiat money. As far as I can determine, this is the opinion of one editor, 186.71.169.87 ( talk). This editor has been extremely active on the article and on its talk page, posting large walls of text in support of their position.
User Icewhiz has shown more patience than I would have in engaging the IP in discussion. Icewhiz has also quite properly opened up an RfC. There haven't been as many talk-page comments as I would have expected, though.
In my opinion, the IP's contributions qualify as both tendentious and fringe-y. Would anyone else like to comment? NewEnglandYankee ( talk) 00:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Protected for a week. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 19:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me as though the article is being edited by Scott Creighton [31] [32] using 4 IP addresses that geolocate in Glasgow where he lives. See the comments by these IPs on the article's talk page. There's a 5th IP, 72* who is in Virginia and I don't think that's Creighton. See Talk:Richard William Howard Vyse#The Great Pyramid Hoax where he is promoting his new book and acting as though he is different people. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a statement in the lead and more in the article about it being 5000 years old. It's possible the Springer source is an RS, I haven't checked it, but the others don't seem sufficient for such claims. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I saw this on my watchlist as a result of an un-related PROD. I'm unsure if there's a reason to delete Llywelyn, Prince of Cymru, but some claims are presented in Wikipedia's voice that should not be. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If discussion needs to continue, please do so at
Talk:Defensive gun use.
GMG
talk 19:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
Please someone fix Defensive gun use, or delete the page altogether. This is a hoax page run by fringe gun nuts claiming that there are 4 million defensive gun uses per year, despite actual statistics showing there are only 230 jusifitiable homicides with a firearm in the US annually. Editors at this page will not listen to reason or logic that it is impossible for there to be 4 million defensive gun uses per year, since that figure cannot logically exceed the number of total violent crimes prevented. HOAX ALERT!!!!! Logic Freebaser ( talk) 14:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Evidence also indicates that the current figure of 4.7 million was simply made up in the comments section, after the editors were called out on inventing a prior "33 million" figure. This page is so bad and worthless it should simply be deleted, and nothing would be lost. Logic Freebaser ( talk) 14:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That talk page is disturbing. A user complained about the 33 million figure, and the locals circled the wagons to try to talk them out of it. Then after the fact, one of them finally admits that the figure was unsourced! That article needs outside attention, I don't trust the current group of editors to handle it competently. Geogene ( talk) 14:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC) (ec) The second reference to the sentence with the 4 million claim does include a summary of a George Will column that stated there were 2 million a year, and the reference is specifically addressing DGUs, by name, in a scholarly format, published by a respectable source - it is a WP:RS (the cited reference, not necessarily the Will column). We don't use logic in evaluating reliable sources, and a claim doesn't need to be reasonable to be included, it just has to be noteworthy (not WP:UNDUE). While 4 million may have been made up, it is not off the mark by much. Whether this topic is notable enough is something that can be debated, as can specific content, but it certainly isn't a hoax, and you do yourself no favors using loaded language like this. Agricolae ( talk) 14:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
In his book, Hemenway dissects the 2.5 million gure from a variety of angles and, by extension, the NRA’s own non-lethal self-defense claims for rearms. He concludes, “It is clear that the claim of 2.5 million annual self-defense gun uses is a vast overestimate” and asks, “But what can account for it?” As he details in his book, the main culprit is the “telescoping and...false positive problem” that derives from the very limited number of respondents claiming a self-defense gun use, “a matter of misclassi cation that is well known to medical epidemiologists.” http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf It is well known that figures in the millions are a hoax. It is not possible for there to be millions of legitimate defensive gun uses per year in the US when the FBI claims only 1.2 million crimes attempted annually, 63 percent of which are simple assault. It is not unreasonable to demand that our claims be logically possible. Logic Freebaser ( talk) 14:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The article has been protected, the socks blocked (without a checkuser that I can see), and at least a few more editors are more aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
|
I found the following to be well worth reading:
https://ncse.com/library-resource/my-favorite-pseudoscience
Key quote:
"Those of us concerned about pseudoscience and its attractiveness to the public would be well advised to consider the emotional needs that are met by beliefs in ESP, alien abduction, astrology, psychic powers, and the like, and address them as well as criticizing the poor science invoked by supporters to support the pseudoscience. We skeptics sometimes feel that the people we are trying to reach are impenetrable — and some of them are! The public is divided into 3 parts: confirmed believers, confirmed skeptics, and a much larger middle group that does not know much science, but does not have the emotional commitments that might lead it to embrace a pseudoscientific view... I have found that I am most effective with that large middle group, and hardly ever effective with the true believers; I suspect most skeptics have had similar experiences. But after all, reaching that large middle group is also the goal of the proponents of pseudoscience. If, like most skeptics, you feel that we would all be better off with more science and less pseudoscience, then that is where we should be focusing our energies, rather than fruitlessly arguing with people who will never agree with us. But to reach that group that is potentially reachable, we must also be aware that a scientific explanation is necessary but not sufficient to change someone’s mind; if I have learned anything from over 25 years in the skeptic business, it is that it is necessary to deal with the emotional reasons that make our species susceptible to these beliefs, as well as the scientific."
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
"emotional needs that are met by beliefs in ESP, alien abduction, astrology, psychic powers"
While astrology has been with us for several millennia now and probably reflects our beliefs about destiny, I have trouble figuring out what emotional need is fulfilled by the alien abduction tales of the 20th century. Being abducted, restrained, and abused by powerful strangers does not sound like much of a wish fulfillment narrative. Dimadick ( talk) 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Need more eyes on Functionalism (philosophy of mind). Looks like an editor is trying to insert some serious woo about computers, plus NPOV comments like changing "as an alternative to the identity theory of mind and behaviorism." to "as an alternative to the increasingly unpopular theories of behaviorism and identity theory of mind."
The same editor has been trying to do something similar at Talk:Theistic science#Pseudoscience. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The sealioning [34] has started at Talk:Functionalism (philosophy of mind), just as happened at Talk:Theistic science#Pseudoscience. Can I get a little help, please? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
William M. Branham was a Pentecostal evangelist and faith healer in the 1940s and 1950s. The article was previously something of a hagiography, and there has been a lot of back-and-forth addition and removal of text over the last few years, with faithful adherents to the beliefs Branham preached frequently disagreeing with editors who are more focused on WP:NPOV and related policies. Recently, the article went through a GA review and it is currently a pretty neutral piece. (There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page, but it's mostly held in a civil tone.)
However, I have a couple of questions for the good regulars of this board.
That Branham claimed to be able to perform miracles is sourced, and that info needs to be in the article, of course. And despite having been accused of not assuming good faith, I certainly believe that even the editors who would prefer it if the article said that the miracles were real genuinely feel that they are acting in the encyclopedia's best interests; it might just be difficult to reconcile that particular religious belief with Wikipedia's notions of neutrality. Some more eyes on the article from uninvolved editors would be a nice thing, because as I say this has been an ongoing issue for a number of years (I have not been involved at all until very recently, and had no part in the huge cleanup that led to the successful GA review). -- bonadea contributions talk 20:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
We should attribute such claims, other then that they are sourced. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Swami Nithyananda could use some additional watchlisters. It is subject to vandalism by haters of the subject (and attempts to inject dubious scandal material), yet both whitewashing and promotional FRINGE claims by Nithyananda's followers (who also inject a lot of PoV wording). Almost all of it from both sides is by anon IP editors. I think longterm auto-confirmed protection is probably in order, as well as regular examination for non-encyclopedic material. I've done a minor editing pass on it today to clean up some of the wording, and flagged primary and self-published sources (one is okay for one claim, two are not). There's another source, some "Indian Book of World Records" site that is probably unreliable and is being used as a source for a claim that something paranormal actually happened. It's almost certain that the source is being misrepresented or is itself a bunch of WP:UGC. I also know someone among his adherents, and through her have reached out to more of them with a "mini-tutorial" on how to do Wikipedia properly. I have no idea if this will have any effect. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
PS: The "It was reported that ..." matter in the thread above this one also strongly applies to this case. I generally avoid topics like this, so I'm not sure what the exact consensus is on how to treat press reports that appear to support claims of the paranormal, especially when they come from communities of people largely in the same religion, i.e. apt to believe and repeat the claims on a faith basis. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
PPS: One of his people did get back to me, and the short version of their side of the story is that they know that some followers have posted non-neutral stuff and don't mind its removal, but are concerned about defamatory claims being inserted based on "news" that is tabloid or fake news that's actually paid for. India has a lot of papers that print what people pay them to, he says. Thus there's little news coverage of Nithyananda's organization, other than what monied detractors are willing to pay for. Said that they have several ongoing defamation lawsuits against some of these outfits. I said they should mention that in questioning reliability of "sources" that they are suing; bring it up at the talk page or at WP:RSN if necessary. The court stuff should be public record both as to filings as as to results. For my part, I remain concerned about the FRINGE stuff that followers keep inserting ("news" reports about miraculous stuff, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, there's a new user trying to change the content of Ann Louise Gittleman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as they believe it's a BLP issue. Could someone take a look at it please. Putting this here as the article is about Alternative medicine. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, when criticism is made against people we are supposed to provide their responses.not necessarily. It however depends on the subject matter: policies deal differently with pseudoscience and sexual orientation for instance (or gender identification). — Paleo Neonate – 08:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Shag Harbour UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone has added a section called Pre Crash Aerial Phenomenon. Only ufologists believe something actually "crashed" in Shag Harbor (such as this non-notable ufo book, however, its POV of primary sources (various unrelated reports of people who say they saw lights in the sky) is being pushed at the article [37]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm wondering if we have a resident UFO debunker who might want to check the sourcing for this. I was watching "UFOs: The Lost Evidence" on AHC earlier and there was a brief discussion of Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident which in typical fashion of UFO programs featured snippets of all sorts of credentialed peopled (e.g. people who worked for the FAA and former military personnel with secret clearances, etc.) confirming that there was a UFO. If this skeptical website is to be believed, the pilot had a history of reporting UFOs and told things to the press that he didn't tell the FAA or are not confirmed by the flight recordings, and the two other members of the flight crew did not see anything remarkable. The article reiterates the claims and allegations of various players as fact (e.g. meeting in which individuals were instructed not to talk to anyone, etc.).- Location ( talk) 19:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia covers it up,
therefore aliens.
Apparent fringe and/or COI promotion of Kedar Joshi, as pointed out by LordQwert at the Joshi article AfD nomination. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 17:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Radiohalo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not exactly sure whether my edits on this have solved all the problems with this article. Robert V. Gentry might also deserve a perusal. jps ( talk) 21:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Ellis (author) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.— Paleo Neonate – 05:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hoax? — Paleo Neonate – 01:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Looks like some original research has made it into this article and using unreliable sources or at the least giving undue weight. Anyone feel like taking a look. MrBill3 ( talk) 16:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 57 | |
---|---|
Other names | Excited delirium syndrome, agitated delirium |
Specialty | Emergency medicine, psychiatry |
Symptoms | Agitation, delirium, sweating [1] |
Complications | Rhabdomyolysis, high blood potassium [1] |
Causes | Drug use, mental illness [1] |
Differential diagnosis | Low blood sugar, heat stroke, thyrotoxicosis, paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disorder [1] |
Treatment | Sedation, cooling, intravenous fluids [1] |
Medication | Ketamine or midazolam and haloperidol [2] |
Prognosis | Risk of death < 10% [1] |
Frequency | Unknown [1] |
Excited delirium is a controversial diagnosis that is not recognized by either of the two official bodies that recognize somatic and psychiatric diagnoses. A small group has been changing the wording to be weaselly as if it has a secret alternative name, that is not revealed. I believe all fringe medical diagnoses should mention that they are unrecognized in the first paragraph with the non-weasel wording. Once it is recognized, we can add the code it has been assigned in the infobox. Currently the article looks just like an official diagnosis article. What do you think? You can see other alternative medicine diagnoses here: Category:Alternative diagnoses. -- RAN ( talk) 15:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A couple of things
Anyway have clarified the wording. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
References
I wonder if the lead should more clearly explain that this sexual inversion hypothesis is not mainstream or the like. Also, when reading the reception section, it appears to suggests that it is. Possibly that someone more familiar with the humanities and sexuality, LGBT studies, etc, should look at it. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 11:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This is up for deletion (see here) but may well survive. It is a focus of woo, as indicated by the very first edit; the talk page (once you get past the mess someone made of it at some point) is a study. There is apparently at least one source claiming that the whole thing is something of a scam on gullible westerners. I'm surprised it hasn't shown up here earlier but it could use our ministrations. Mangoe ( talk) 16:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Since this section was re-written several years ago, it contains some surprisingly counter-intuitive statements, like this one:
The wide ecological diversity typical of Mediterranean Europe is predominantly based on human behavior, as it is and has been closely related human usage patterns.
I'm not sure if this is a mainstream theory or a fringe theory, but it needs some additional fact-checking. Is it true that human settlements in the Mediterranean region have actually increased the region's biodiversity (instead of decreasing it?) Jarble ( talk) 19:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In this discussion Talk:Tyler_Henry#Merger we´ve talked ourselves into merging Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry into Tyler Henry, medium of Kardashians. Anyone feel up to it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Can we use a book written by a psychologist and published by a white nationalist press as a source for history?. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 04:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
"unusual health-related incidents" ...temporary or permanent hearing loss, memory loss, and nausea."
I don't get why is this unusual.
My first question would not be of what advanced weapon was used hear. It would be what were these people eating and drinking. Dimadick ( talk) 15:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)