This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network (AVN) is a deceptive anti-vaccination group that has been ordered to change its name, include disclaimers on its website, and has been stripped of nonprofit status, due to its publication of misleading information about vaccines. In the article Australian Measles Control Campaign ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I believe it is inappropriate to cite AVN's demonstrably false claims from their own website, even though we do so primarily in order to say they are wrong. A claim that is significant will be reported in reliable independent secondary sources and can be cited from there. A claim that is not covered by reliable independent secondary sources, is almost certainly not significant, and using an unreliable primary source solely so that we can cover how wrong that source is, seems to me to be a rather fundamental failure of Wikipedia principles.
It would be good to have better sourcing, the source for Wooldridge's statmente gives me a 404, should the whole section be removed as OR until we find better sources? Tornado chaser ( talk) 23:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Natasha Demkina ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's about time we revisit this nonsense. WP:FLASHINTHEPAN, quite obviously (not so obvious last decade when the article was subject to a lot of argument). However, the stale article now reads like a weird snapshot of a media circus. Better sourcing, less sensationalism, etc. would be nice. jps ( talk) 19:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
As discussed in greater depth on the talk page of this article. There is a widespread Fringe theory, an example of medical
WP:QUACKERY that continues to be insinuated and promulgated by some in the media and political sphere, often by use of
weasel wording, that this individual's death from sepsis, was somehow related to Irish laws on abortion or "denial of abortion". A classic example being, how the introduction of this wikipedia article reads. "Savita died...after being denied an abortion".
Not a single WP:RSMED state that "denial of abortion" played the least bit of a role in her death. Yet, this wikipedia article presents the loaded insination in the lede that. "Savita died...after being denied an abortion".
When WP:RSMED emphatically states "If no high quality source exists for a controversial statement it is best to leave it out; this is not bias."
A grand total of, none, zero, of the WP:RSMEDs mention this politically charged red-herring, neither | the Patient Safety Investigation Report published by Health Information and Quality Authority (Savita Halappanavar [1] or the HSE report, [2] nor the controversially "hand-picked" & apparently "pro-choice" Arkulaman report. None of them support this WP:FRINGE narrative of "denial of abortion" as potentially life-saving. Zero. Yet from how this wikipedia article is written, you are intentionally massaged into thinking it was. Despite all the medical evidence being to the contrary.
In fact, while it is always impossible to prove a negative. We even have the illuminating situation were other WP:RSMEDs, the opinions of a disparate array of the most authoritative medical professionals in the field, we even have these experts all actively bringing this arm-chair doctor "treatment" up, in the negative. That "denial of abortion" played no part. They naturally had to bring this up in the negative, after all the arm-chair medical-insinuation-experts, came out of the wood-work.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 19:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who's right or wrong in the reverts going on here. But I do know from long experience that the winner will be the first one who stops reverting. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 19:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Still not a fringe theory. There are reasonable interpretations of the situation where, if abortion on demand existed in Ireland, it's reasonable to think that Savita would be alive (because, for example, she could have had a procedure earlier in the pregnancy. You've produced evidence that an abortion a few days before her death would not have saved the Savita which is a separate matter. But you have not demonstrated that this idea is actually being pushed as a fringe theory, per se. Being mistaken about how something happened is not the same thing as a fringe theory. jps ( talk) 20:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Tired light ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Licorne ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back at it again with the normal IP accounts. An SPI has been filed, but in the meantime he is likely to begin revert wars. Help is appreciated.
jps ( talk) 18:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
A very interesting topic necessitating more eyes. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 06:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Nikodem Popławski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oh my. This is some self-congratulatory stuff. I'm not sure whether the article deserves existence, clearly the subject fails WP:PROF, and I don't think his appearance in popular press is reliable at all. jps ( talk) 20:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Bharat Jhunjhunwala ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has just been edited by the subject. I wasn't bothered by the edits (other than the email address) but Cluebot reverted him. I was surprised by his edit as the article hadn't suggested he was fringe, but the edit stated He propounds the theory that the Prophets of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims on the one hand and Hindus on the other hand were the same persons. The persons whom the Jews, Christians and Muslims worship as Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham and Moses were the same persons as those whom the Hindus worship as Swayambhu Manu, Indra, Vaivaswat Manu, Rama and Krishna. Moses, who was the same person as Krishna, led the Exodus from the Indus Valley to Yisrael. Basis of this argument is that the geographical details given in the scriptures and archaeological evidence match with these Prophets having lived in the Indus Valley. The living traditions are amenable to “capture” hence only those living traditions may be accepted which match with the geographical and archaeological evidence. Note that he actually did receive the claimed award. I added the link to Panchjanya (magazine) which I also edited to give information about its link to the ruling party in India, which for those who are unaware, pushes fringe beliefs. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Eben Alexander (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alexander has returned to edit this article. Two minor unexceptionable edits and then a major pov one which I've reverted and told him to take to his article's talk page. Might need some eyes. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
"Paranormal researcher" up for deletion. Others might find something; I found nothing in print. Mangoe ( talk) 20:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hall of Records ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I gave this article a light editing yesterday, to make it clear that there is no mythology involved with a "Hall of Records", a term invented by Edgar Cayce, and to remove the following text:
The Hall has been said by some historical commentators, including Manetho and Plutarch, to house the knowledge of the Pre-Dynastic Founders and latter Egyptians on papyrus, as well as several inscribed golden metal plate scrolls with a partial history of the lost civilisation of Atlantis, much as the Great Library of Alexandria housed Grecian knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}
Despite knowing the term had been invented in the early 20th century, I did do my due diligence to see if I could source it. User:Smuckola reverted me despite the fact that the citation template was 10 1/2 years old with the edit summary "then feel free to find a citation. there's nothing dubious or WP:UNDUEabout it." Unless things have change drastically this restoration of unsourced text shouldn't be done, and it is certainly more than dubious. The article is about the "Hall of Records", not about mysterious golden plates or even the knowledge of Pre-Dynastic founders. Claims that commentators such as Manetho or Plutarch or other "historical commentators", which means in the context those living long ago" about golden plates might be suitable for Atlantis but anything about Egypt's history being hidden would be a separate article if indeed there were proper sources. Unless I see actual arguments based either on sources or policy and guidelines I'll revert it again at some point. If someone here can find a better category than the red-linked "Mythological libaries" I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
For the time being, I just added parent category Libraries. We do not seem to have other articles on mythological libraries.
Now as for Manetho writing about this, how would we know? Manetho was a Hellenistic Egyptian priest who wrote the "Aegyptiaca", a book on the history of Egypt. Most of his work is now lost. What he have are fragments and summaries of his work by other writers, such as Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Jerome, John Malalas, and George Syncellus. And some of the fragments are contradictory to each other.
With Plutarch, a Roman-Greek priest, we have more of his works preserved. However his most famous work Parallel Lives, is a group of biographical accounts of various historical (and a few mythological) figures. The historical setting is from the 13th century BC to the 1st century AD. Is there any specific work of Plutarch used as a source here? Dimadick ( talk) 23:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Tengri currently has a link to Dingir (a Sumerian word), with a citation dating back to the 50's, which cites research from the 20's, that states that the Turkish and Sumerian Languages are related (they're not).
When I put in an edit request to have the link removed, I was told that I had to provide "a source that characterized the Sumerian-Turkic connection as fringe research".
Would anyone care to chime in on this? 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
References
The user above (IP account 74.70.146.1) has been already reported for edit-warring in the article Dingir. There are reliable and verifiable sources that points out that the Sumerian Dingir might be a loan from Turkic Tengri/Tengir. Both being the primary gods in the respective religions. Here is the source which is constantly being removed by him without any reason: [1]
References
Languages don't have to be related genetically to possess loan words, so his reasoning here has no basis whatsoever. Regards, Akocsg ( talk) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Widom-Larsen theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The cold fusion "industry" heralded this idea as promising, but twelve years on and still no one takes this idea seriously except cold fusion true believers (man they hate it when you call them that). I am trying to decide whether it is worthy of inclusion. My instinct is "no", but would like other opinions.
jps ( talk) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There are huge problems with this idea not the least of which that about 10^11 Bq of beta radiation would be expected for every watt of power generated (the dead grad student problem in a different form). Of course, because essentially no one except true believers gives a care about cold fusion nonsense, nobody seems to have expanded upon this obvious point which is exactly why I think we have an instance of an unnoticed fringe theory. Poorly vetted books and a solitary article from Discover Magazine from five years ago notwithstanding. jps ( talk) 14:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
"physicists will propose dozens of theories before the phenomenon is adequately explained","anomalies observed in experiments". This assumes facts not in evidence: namely that there are any phenomena that need explaining or that there are any anomalies that are something more than pathological science. It's also not true that this is "one of the few cold-fusion/LENR theories that has been subject to detailed academic peer review and scrutiny". In fact, this is not subject to much scrutiny whatsoever. There are exactly two non-true-believer sources that I can find that treat the idea with the necessary independence. I'm not looking for any outcome at all, but the way this "theory" is being described in Wikipedia currently is not, I would say, doing readers any service. jps ( talk) 03:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not particularly impressed with the quality any of your responses to the fundamental points. Citing h-indices for entire journals and arguing that Discover Magazine is magic is, well, precious. I'll wait for some other responses. jps ( talk) 00:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Opinions welcome.
jps ( talk) 12:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
What brought my attention to it was its removal from the pseudoscience category. There are interesting recent edits to review. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 15:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Subject is making major POV edits to their own article. [9] despite my warning. I went to COIN but no response. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
An interesting new draft — Paleo Neonate – 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The Society for Psychical Research has now has an online encyclopedia to compete with Wikipedia articles on parapsychology. They claim that Wikipedia's articles on psychical topics are too skeptical and they attempt to 'balance' the case with their own articles. [10], Having had a look at their articles it seems their agenda is to claim various psychics and mediums were actually genuine. Their article on Dean Radin claims he is doing legit science [11] and claims his Wikipedia article was highjacked by skeptics. I have noticed that this "Psi encyclopedia" has started to pop up on various Wikipedia related articles as a reference. I believe any case of this website should be removed. The website seems to be very negative about Wikipedia. What do you guys think about this? Should it be blacklisted? 78.108.46.82 ( talk) 05:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a section in this article called "Difficulties in assessment, media hysteria and unscientific claims". It was a mess. First it made claims in wikipedias voice on medical "facts" with non-MEDRS sources. It then had a couple of paragraphs deriding these claims in a very editorial tone. You can see this version here.[ [12] Anyway I deleted and tidied up what I could [13]. I am still not very happy with the result. This is not a topic I am overly familiar with, so I would like to see what others think. Personally I am leaning to deleting the whole mess of a section, but we may lose a baby in the process. Any ideas or help appreciated. AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be teased out of marginal or unreliable sources. Does this meet WP:PROF? 82.21.88.44 ( talk) 11:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, the National Health Service has announced plans to stop doctors prescribing homeopathy, herbal and other "low value" treatments. It hopes to save almost £200m a year by ending what the head of the service called a "misuse of scarce" NHS funds. Link -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
There are many sites to crappy journals in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 ( talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
[SPAM DETECTED] [A.F.D. FILED] [RESULT=DELETE] [ FIRE!!! ] .--------------. .-------------. .-------------. .-------------. | o | | | | | \ o / | | \`. | .'/ | | /( )\ | | -- + -- | | --(+)-- | |-- *NUKE!* --| |______/_\_____| | | | |_____/|\_____| |__/_'_|_'_\__| '--------------' '-------------' '-------------' '-------------'
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
A second one, actually. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Astrologer BLP with interesting, primary sourced claims. — Paleo Neonate – 08:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Finland does not exist. Mangoe ( talk) 17:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
"A model consistent with Aircosmic Theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomenon such as extra-sensory perception (ESP)". — Paleo Neonate – 22:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has labelled a 2016 journal article by scholar Mahesh Shankar as FRINGE. The full citation here:
The abstract says:
As the dispute over Kashmir broke out in 1947, a plebiscite of the people of the state offered a mutually acceptable and ostensibly fair path out of the imbroglio. Critics have often laid the blame on Nehru, and the territory’s salience to India, for why a plebiscite was never held. Based on primary documentation, this article makes the case that it was not a lack of commitment to the formula, but rather Nehru’s deeply held strategic and reputational fears that motivated, first, the setting of what Delhi saw as firm but fair pre-conditions, and after the conclusion of the US-Pakistan military pact in 1954, the complete rejection of the plebiscite option.
According to the editor, the fact the article goes against the grain and disagrees with the majority of sources (but not all) that were published earlier makes it FRINGE. What is your view? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Scholars have similarly pointed to Nehru’s occasional expression of skepticism about the wisdom and practicality of holding a plebiscite
Most prominent accounts of the Kashmir dispute attribute Nehru’s role in the failure to achieve peace to the immense nationalist, strategic, and even emotional value India’s first prime minister attached to the territory
In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."
It is visible to all readers that Shankar is propounding an idea which contradicts the mainstream views in this topic. He admits it himself
"It particularly addresses critics’ claims—in Pakistan and in the scholarly
community—that the failure of the plebiscite option owed itself solely to Nehru’s
intransigence"
Scholars have similarly pointed to Nehru’s occasional expression of skepticism
about the wisdom and practicality of holding a plebiscite
"Most prominent accounts" of the Kashmir dispute attribute Nehru’s role in
the failure to achieve peace to the immense nationalist, strategic, and even
emotional value India’s first prime minister attached to the territory
.
[3]
Being in a 'scholarly' source is irrelevant to the fact that it is an idea without wider acceptance in the scholarly community, this is explicitly admitted by the 'scholar' who authored this theory. This source is a revisionist account and revisionist accounts not accepted by the wider scholarly community are fringe regardless of whether they're published in peer-reviewed journal articles or not. It is a matter of common sense that this Shankar source is not anything but fringe.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 03:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
References
This survived AFD two and a half years back on no consensus. It has the classic Energy Catalyzer-style list of every last little sales detail, so you know it's important. One GScholar hit and six GBook hits.
BTW this is likely my last FT/N submission as I haven't been able to make a new article in a long time, and getting bad cats and articles deleted is hardly a way to do business. Mangoe ( talk) 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
"A lot of people, including celebrities like NBA player Kyrie Irving and Tila Tequila, have publicly said in the past that they think our planet is as flat, and attendees at a conference held this week in Cary apparently agree. The Flat Earth International Conference put on a sold-out a meeting Nov. 9-10 at the Embassy Suites in Cary.
According to the group's website, registration fees to attend the conference ranged from $27 (for online streaming) all the way up to $249 for a VIP package. Several attendees apparently drove campers to the event and parked them in the hotel parking lot while the conference was underway.
Convention organizers paid for a billboard advertisement that was erected in late October along Route 401.
The group of people who believe the Earth is flat has gained momentum in recent years and been the subject of social media feuds and several national news reports.
The convention in Cary was set to feature 14 speakers and include exhibitions and panel discussions about topics that included: NASA and other space lies; Flat Earth with the scientific method; and waking up to mainstream science lies."
http://www.wral.com/flat-earth-conference-held-in-cary-/17105359/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
A vast chunk of it is devoted to Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson's fringe book The Lost Gospel. Most of it, although now revised, was added here by AncientScrolls100 ( talk · contribs) who has been pushing these sources into various articles. The article on their book looks as though it needs work, and AncientScrolls100 has clearly used Barrie Wilson's home page as a source for review snippets [15] at Wilson's BLP. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
An IP, 40.134.67.50 ( talk), has been going around to articles removing mentions related to Beall's list. More eyes would be helpful on the articles they've been editing such as Stephanie Seneff, Oncotarget, etc. Especially since there's been a history of socking and disruptive editors on the subject, the IP citing wikilinks like a somewhat experienced editor getting into potential WP:DUCK territory, but I'm not familiar enough with recent ongoings in the topic area to check it out further very quickly. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/10/31/former-qb-bizarre-conspiracy-theory-nfl/
Key quote:
- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
"The Bible says that you become like your idol that you worship"
Where does it say that if you worship a god, you become a god?
And I think you missed something on the source text. After all the mumbo-jumbo on how the NFL dehumanizes American audiences: "He goes on to say that this is what causes the country to get into so many wars."
And there I thought the United States has been fighting wars since the 18th century. Dimadick ( talk) 08:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This is about using his books on military history as a source. That's not fringe but he definitely is, so I think the RSN discussion is relevant to editors here. I've raised this at WP:RSN#Are books by an ex-Nazi writer of fringe books on Atlantis, etc RS for military history? Doug Weller talk 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Frank Collin as a source? He is a former Neo-Nazi, who was kicked out from a Neo-Nazi party due to a conviction for molesting children. He has since turned into a New Age writer, whose main claim to fame is supporting the historicity of Atlantis and Lemuria. Dimadick ( talk) 08:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mind Control -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I removed 2 paragraphs from the article Serpent Mound sourced to fringe author Ross Hamilton. He's an Atlantis/giant nephilim/stars of Draco enthusiast who sometimes does lectures with notorious fringer Graham Hancock. Also, there is currently a minor kerfuffle surrounding the site concerning the Ohio Historical Society and some new age groups no longer being permitted to hold events at the site. I do not know if anyone will show to "set the record straight" here, but some extra eyes on the article for awhile might not be a bad idea. Cheers. He iro 22:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Redirect just changed into an article. Quite a few problems including poor sources and stating disputed event as fact. No time now to fix. Doug Weller talk 06:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Are there any new claims in the book? It supports the controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which concerns comet impacts and an extinction event at 12,900 BP. The hypothesis is disputed because it seems to contradict a number of archaeological and palaeontological data. Dimadick ( talk) 09:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This looks incredibly fishy to me. Guy ( Help!) 23:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Mass edits being done by an IP who seems to be dominating this article. He inserted a sentence which claimed that some of the arguments used by mythicists are accepted by mainstream academia and linked to two blogs. 139.99.130.220 ( talk) 20:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This was just posted at Talk:Bastyr University. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I note that the July dates that the account were active coincide rather nicely with this interesting story. Things that make you go, "hmm." jps ( talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Currently at MfD. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 10:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMO conspiracy theories.
Comment please!
jps ( talk) 02:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
And now!
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsanto public relations activities.
jps ( talk) 19:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't really want to get sanctioned over edit warring here, so please see Chicken or the egg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
User:D1gggg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been adding a lot of questionable stuff, with poor English and weird layout. He's a fairly new editor and has been extremely active lately, also apparently trying to scrub any links to this article from anywhere else on Wikipedia. I don't know if this is the best place to bring this up (ANI seems like overkill), but I'm not sure wheat else to do here. I really don't have the time or patience to chase down everything that he's been doing, so any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 03:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:DENY |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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. For the most egregious example, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier&diff=809663502&oldid=809659332 "We now know that Fusion GPS executives are being uncooperative with the investigation and have pleaded the 5th; the Clinton campaign funded part of the Steele dossier, there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton, and the FBI also funded part of that dossier." User needs a block. 209.140.43.55 ( talk) 09:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
|
"An internal Wikipedia forum meant to combat conspiracy theories" has to be this place. Interesting article, too: A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
These one-time editors’ lack of experience became clear when they began voting in favor of keeping the article on Wikipedia – a practice not employed in the English version of Wikipedia since 2016, when editors voted to exchange the way articles are deleted for a process of consensus-based decision through discussion.Mmm? The vote-and-discussion hybrid method of handling issues has been ongoing for a while. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I looked at this fellow's Google Scholar profile and at least on that basis his wiki-notability with respect to WP:PROF is at best borderline. We have lots of bios on borderline or non-notable academics that slide through under the radar because no one is really looking. What seems to have happened here is that people started looking. My interpretation is that his article wasn't deleted because he is a creationist (we have lots of articles on creationists), but because his creationism brought the scrutiny that all BLPs should have but too often don't. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It would require a change in policy. My guess is the community would not be okay with it. jps ( talk) 20:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, part of what we tell people who are trying to get a fringe-related article published is to get noticed by reliable sources. Here's an example of this sort of thing happening. Makes our job harder when they do this sort of thing, but I can imagine the way that the article would develop now would be "... is a paleontologist who in 2016 began to argue against evolution and in favor of creationist points. A fellow the Discovery Institute, he achieved a level of media fame after his Wikipedia biography was deleted after community consensus determined that he did not fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Subsequent complaints promoted by the Discovery Institute's public relations team were picked up by Haaretz and the Christian News Network."
However, this seems to be something of a flash in the pan. They must be really excited to have gotten Haaretz's notice. But the penetration beyond that seems rather pitiable.
jps ( talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Some new fringey material added to this already fringe-heavy article. An unsourced mention of someone called "Gilligan" leads me to suspect the involvement of somebody who recently had their own page deleted on notability grounds. This should be AfD'd unless better / more sources are forthcoming. Seems to just be promoting one book. Famous dog (c) 07:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
There's some discussion over at WikiProject Mathematics about the article on viXra. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Key quotes:
"Theories discussed during the interview included NASA being controlled by round-Earth Freemasons and Elon Musk making fake rockets from blimps."
" 'John Glenn and Neil Armstrong are Freemasons. Once you understand that, you understand the roots of the deception.' "
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you asking for assistance with an article? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
In cleaning up after someone stuck the Jesus Wife Fragment into a bunch of irrelevant places, I've come across a collection of bios of people who wrote popular books with various more-or-less fringey theories on Christian origins, particularly attached to the Jesus bloodline notion, though there are a few "Paulianity" people too. As far as I can tell, that's what these people are known for, because with a couple of exceptions for people who wrote their book earlier, the bios appeared shortly after their books were published. The bios, however, consistently read like supposedly notable academics who happened to write a book on the side. So I'm looking at the following:
The last two guys are probably always going to have their own articles. The others, I'm not so sure. Most of them seem primarily notable as authors of these controversialist works. Is there cause for merging them back into those articles? Mangoe ( talk) 17:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
See the recent article Thought-Forms (book), it may look scholarly from a first glance, but most of the sources are from Theosophical books and it reads like promotion. There is also Occult or Exact Science?, How Theosophy Came to Me, Man: Whence, How and Whither, a Record of Clairvoyant Investigation (all of the sources are Theosophical), From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan, The Occult World, K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. The same pattern here, all created by the same editor. There are others.
Another example, The Esoteric Character of the Gospels, Philosophers and Philosophicules etc. Basically if you strip these articles down there would be only a handful of reliable neutral sources that discuss these books. The user making these articles SERGEJ2011 only edits in relation to Theosophy, I suspect this user is associated or works for the Theosophical Society Adyar. 139.99.131.38 ( talk) 07:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
"are these book reviews of probably non-notable books"
Book reviews? I think you did not notice the years of publications in some of these books. One dates to 1901, another to 1886, etc. They are over a century old. Dimadick ( talk) 08:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
His recent article Christianity and Theosophy cites:
Ellwood R. S. (16 August 2011). "Bailey, Alice Ann Latrobe Bateman". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017. ———— (November 2000). "Christian Ritual in Theosophical Perspective". Quest. Theosophical Society in America. 88 (6): 225–227. Retrieved 26 October 2017. ———— (7 April 2012). "Christianity, Theosophical Approaches to". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017. ———— (2012-03-15). "Leadbeater, Charles Webster". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017.
The " Theosopedia" is not a reliable source. It is a public wiki used by Theosophists that contains little to no reliable sources. 139.99.131.38 ( talk) 02:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
SERGEJ2011 has been adding the Theosopedia reference to a number of articles, [18]. They should all be removed. 139.99.131.38 ( talk) 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Epoch Times#Carries a lot of fringe material. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Mind you I was a bit shocked to see it used as so many China related articles, including BLPs, [20] considering that it hates the Chinese government. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone mentioned this on the
WP:RDS. A quick look suggests to me they're right to be concerned e.g. Facial toning may not only be beneficial as a means of remaining looking youthful from the additional oxygen and nutrients supplied by the blood reaching the facial tissues but may also positively affect the functions of the sensory organs, (the eye, ears, nose and tongue) from increased stimulation of the neural pathways within the cranial nerve of the human brain that affect the sensory systems
. Some of the sources for the overall article at least look to be peer reviewed articles (although probably not MEDRS) but others are things like Chinese Holistic Health Practices, Daily Mail, Vogue Italy.
Nil Einne (
talk) 16:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a current SPI open about this user but as he is promoting fringe theories I mention it here so people can monitor the article because I believe this will be on-going on other articles. The user in question Ben Steigmann is a psychic believer who argues that J. B. Rhine's experiments actually demonstrated clairvoyance and telepathy. He uploads his POV version of the article [21] on his "Rhine Revival" account many times. He then deletes it knowing that his version will stay on the Wikipedia database. He then cites his Wikipedia edits as a 'valid' source on his anti-Wikipedia/pro-parapsychology research project on Wikiversity [22]. His project claims practically all Wikipedia articles are wrong on parapsychology and that all psychics were basically genuine. He has also been doing this sort of thing on the Frederic W. H. Myers article recently, uploading huge chunks of fringe material and spam from his Wikiversity project and then removing it so it is still stored in the database and he can link to it. I have requested that his edits are striked and they are entirely removed from the database but this has not yet happened.
As this user is doing this on two parapsychology articles, it is likely he is doing it on others on different accounts. Has anyone noticed a similar pattern on any other articles? If you do it is likely the same person. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 15:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I cannot access revdeleted edits to see their patterns. It seems that a lot of text is being copied. It would be interesting to know if those texts typically include common links which would suit for reporting at WT:WPSPAM for potential blacklisting... — Paleo Neonate – 06:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
An interesting new article that appears to require much work. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 00:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Loughan via the "Academics and educators" deletion-sorting list. Posting here on account of the claim he invented a free-energy gizmo out of "a coffee tin, two coils, a spoon and wire". XOR'easter ( talk) 18:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Dewey Lake Monster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regional legend rendered sensational. I've trimmed back the crap somewhat, but it'll probably grow back quickly. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There are several articles in Wikipedia that descibe a hypothetical "para-Austronesian" language group, but these articles do not provide any references that describe it. Is it possible to find any reliable sources (outside of Wikipedia) that describe this hypothesis in detail? Jarble ( talk) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche ( Spanish: Mapuche Ancestral Resistance, RAM) is an organization in Argentina that wants territories that they claim belonged to the Mapuche indigenous peoples, and who uses violence and vandalism to voice their protests. Some call them a terrorist organization, others prefer to use more politically correct terms. However, I'm having problems with some users that frequently add a fringe theory that says that the RAM does not exist, and that it would be just a big deception crafted by intelligence agencies in order to use political repression. I'm not misrepresenting the edits: see the current lead. And in support of this theory we have the senator Pino Solanas, a local priest, and some journalists. A deeper check shows that Solanas belongs to a minor left wing party, that got less than 1.5% of the vote in the previous primary elections and could not even run in the main elections (see here). The local priest is just that. And those "journalists" belong to unreliable sites with very poor reputation, such as "Página 12" or "La Vaca").
Real and noteworthy politicians do acknowledge the existence and actions of this group, such as the vicepresident, The Justicialist Party (the main party of the opposition), province governor Alberto Weretilneck (a province governor is an office analogous to that of a US state governor), the Chilean government, etc.
We may acknowledge the existence of this fringe theory, but in a lower section, treated as such, and confronted with the mainstream views. Not as it done now, that they cast doubts on the existence of the group everywhere. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought that what was I supposed to do, to bring the other contributors so this is not personal vs personal view; But ok... what I'm saying, again, is ram does not exist because there is No proves of his existence...and if you are argentine, you know that false flag illegal operations by intelligence services is habitual, a few months ago in the protest march for Santiago Maldonado case in buenos aires I saw a police group dress as civilians, screaming anarquia(¿?) then breaking cameras of those journalists who doesn't support the gob (here a link to a right wing journalist talking about this, not an oppositor of the gov) [27]; it happened since the 70's (e.g. alfredo astiz); So far there is 2 dead people, at least one murdered by police men and NOT A SINGLE PROVE of an armed mapuche guerrilla...this idea could be pretty laughable if there wasn't people murdered. Here, a deputy, not an oppositor but a member of the actual government, is scandalized and worried about all this:[ [28]] Is this enough for you? What you are doing should not be allowed. alejandro6 ( talk)
Ok, you are getting agressive now. (Cry?). You please indicate me how to call other people, I called 2 of the main editors of the article because of the sources they used. However you just made it clear what is this all about, you are defending your political party view (which is dangerous and racist) by bringing the macri vs. kirchner stuff that has nothing to do here. For the last time, where do you have a proof (cause the government doesn't) that there is a mapuche armed guerrilla instead of a fringe of the intelligence service? Mapuches barely can buy shoes. RAM manifest? done by who? Give me a link to any confiscated fire wheapons by the law, or any report of the true identities of those 5 masked big guys that set fire right in front of the police, then walking to a truck and leaving with the police not even trying to arrest them. Of course it started under C. Kirchner government; that's why many organizations standed against of implementation of Proyecto X, there is even an article here, just go read it [ [29]]. Me and other users did posted links to interviews and declarations of real representants of Mapuche communities giving their full names speaking about all this, (besides deputies -not even leftists, god help us...), journalists and the bishop of bariloche) not some wiki entry -about chilean events ¿?- as you are bringing. Here is the Major of Bariloche talking about this, he doesn't know about the ram nor think any incident had to do with it [30], However I think it's useless to explain you anything, cause you are doing propaganda (a dangerous one, being already a murdered mapuche 3 days ago) here, and you should be banned by vandalism. (Edit, just on more link that you will surely ignore, another deputy claims RAM is a made-up enemy [31]; Alejandro6
If you (as well as the law) think there is an illegal fact or organization going on you most prove it, (specially if there is a murdered involved) not the other way around. Still you (or the government) don't have a prove that any Mapuche killed anyone, nor there is an armed mapuche gueriilla in Argentina(btw if you honestly believe such delusional thing I don't think this conversation can go any further). The one real fact so far is that gendarmerie murdered one mapuche 3 days ago (and we still don't know what happened to Santiago Maldonado. And, the we'll ignore her about the link to the deputy I posted, I want to know who is WE, and why you are unable of doing your vandalism on the spanish section of the same article on wikipedia as you are doing here. Alejandro6
it's ok with me to move it; I would prefer not to do it myself to prevent mistakes, I'm still not entirely familiar with wikipedia functions. To Cambalachero, you said it, when someone voices a conspiracy theory, it does not matter who is her. that's exactly what you, part of argentinean gov. and some press are doing. That's my point. Alejandro6
barcus I just copied the discussion into the Talk of the article; do I delete it from here? Thanks Alejandro6
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Johan Masreliez.
I also submitted Masreliez's theorem for CSD.
jps ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps not surprisingly, I've filed a new SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurtan~enwiki. jps ( talk) 16:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Likewise, !voting !keep with problematic rationales that are rehashing of previous rationale given by other sockpuppeting accounts is time-consuming. The reason this is an "investigation" rather than a conviction is because we don't know what the situation is. Third parties will make the determination and this will all be over in a matter of days. Wikipedia is a time sink because we really don't have good protections against the sort of problems that having content curated by pseudonymous editors causes. You've made your case, I've made mine, let's let others look into the situation, okay? jps ( talk) 16:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
How exciting!
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez's theorem.
jps ( talk) 16:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Warner (aka Bill French) also runs something called The Center for Political Islam. What makes him fringe, I think, is his pseudoscientific statistical method that he thinks shows the truth about Islam. I hope one of these sources mentions it, I can't recall if I copied the url or not. See [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The Discovery Channel's "What on Earth" has a broadcast coming that people are trying to use to prove that Adam's Bridge was built by Rama. [39] [40] This is going to be a big deal for Hindu nationalists. [41] I can't find much on "What on earth" except this. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't deal with fringe topics that often, so I would appreciate a second opinion on whether the subject is notable or not. The article relies on the subject's own website to a large extent and is a subject of current edit warring. I'm wondering if AfD is the way to go here. Please also see:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been getting a stream of slightly pestering emails from an (unindentified) individual wanting me to recuse myself editing from this article, and this prompted me to have a fresh sweep for sources in case we were missing anything substantial. Imagine my surprise when this turned up this book in which I play an (unwitting) bit part! Our article probably could be fuller, and with this kind of activism going on Macrobiotic diet might be an article that fringe-savvy editors could usefully add to their watchlists. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
According to all standard genealogical and as far as I can tell all biographical sources, Alexander Hochberg died on 22 February 1984. We seem to have a busy little beaver who asserts that he was a collective of secret agents who lived until 18 October 1988. The article seems to be a mass of false statements, probably on behalf of the busy little beaver, who asserts that "the false Alexander" adopted one Max Heelein, who "inherited his titles". The article needs to be reverted back, I think, to a version before this bizarre editing started. I only noticed this when changes were made to Daisy, Princess of Pless to add the false death date and history. I've reverted that, but further advice on the Alexander Hochberg article would be appreciated. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Energy Catalyzer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a boring subject, but it looks like gatekeepers believe that the lazy reporting of mutual settlement is the only thing we should say about the lawsuit that ended last year. We, of course, all know that the long con is long, but it does the reader no good to not indicate that the "settlement" as it was, entailed Rossi "walking away" from the lawsuit (the source says as much). jps ( talk) 23:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC) @ Insertcleverphrasehere: for an argument. jps ( talk) 23:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a "law" proposed by Adrian Bejan that appears to have no currency outside his close circle. The article is blatant WP:SYN. I have nominated for deletion, but others may be sufficiently aware of the theory to be able to turn it into a neutral article that accurately reflects its status (if indeed it has any). Guy ( Help!) 09:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Bluntly, this looks bogus to me, and I have AfD'd it, but that could be my bias. Please review. Guy ( Help!) 09:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
has re-sprouted. Quite apart from anything else, what I wonder is "homeopathic surgery" ? Alexbrn ( talk) 10:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Comic relief. jps ( talk) 17:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
From the Arizona Republic (Phoenix, Arizona), Wednesday, July 18, 2007: [43] dead link
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The article on Aron Barbey is an obvious autobiography, edited by himself and IP addresses from his university. The only other edits have been removing obvious puffery - and even then, there's precious little else in the article. What caught my eye is the fact that he's associated with a Frontiers journal, and promulgates a field called "Nutritional Cognitive Neuroscience", which was linked in his autobiography not to a Wikipedia article but to a journal article in Frontiers. Virtually all the cites in the article are primary references to his won work, and most of those are in the Frontiers journal he edits. Which is a massive red flag.
So, I suspect we have a woo-monger here, but I don't know whether the article needs to be nuked, or expanded to cover reality-based critique, if any exists. Guy ( Help!) 16:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Promoted by charlatans to chemotherapy patients, but, as the article notes, "Research on the effects of deuterium-depletion on living cells has been very limited with less than a dozen peer-reviewed research papers available via PubMed in mid-2011". Which is not WP:SYN at all, oh no. Guy ( Help!) 09:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Recently created over a redirect, appears to be about a new age fringe writer. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 03:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Recent persistent removal of WP:PSCI material, I have to leave so additional watchlisters welcome. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 03:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
May I please ask for some participation at Talk:Overton window#Vox video on Overton window. Thanks.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 21:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
https://boingboing.net/2017/12/08/dr-pappy-shaw.html
http://www.save-squaredancing.com/history.htm
Alternative theory: The Slave Roots of Square Dancing
https://daily.jstor.org/the-slave-roots-of-square-dancing/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon ( talk • contribs)
A new/IP user has brought three sources they claim indicate continuing research in cold fusion/LENR from NASA. Unfortunately the sources themselves don't identify themselves as being cold fusion/LENR papers. They have been making strenuous arguments in favor of inclusion on the basis that they are continuing Pons's and Fleischman's research despite these sources not citing or acknowledging Pons or Fleischman anywhere. This seems like a clear case of WP:SYN but other editor's opinions are requested. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Key quote:
"Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
At least the claim that a Japanese whaling boat once caught a dinosaur sounds legit.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to spoil anybody's fun but I would point out that the article that kicked this discussion off is from 5 years ago and from a Scottish tabloid newspaper. Also it seems odd to ask whether dinosaurs live today, today of all days, on which we do our best to eat as many of them as possible. Anyway, I did a quick bit of Googling and, while I was saddened to see that the story does not seem to be a hoax (as I had hoped), it does seem that a quantum of the most basic sanity/dignity eventually prevailed as only one year later the ludicrous claim was dropped. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to explain to a new editor that this edit which uses [47] as a source. Neither the site nor Thompson, whose book on the issue is self-published, are reliable. It might help if a second person explained it also. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Watchlisted. He iro 22:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Coast to Coast AM#Recurring guests. This has no criteria, few sources and is being used to publicse fringe. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Incited panic with a failed earthquake prediction 30 years ago. Today there's an IP user edit warring to make our coverage of this pseudoscientist misunderstood genius fair. Need more outside opinions on it, because I'm "biased".
Geogene (
talk) 06:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear. [48]
This one is going to be a pain. It's already beginning: [49].
We're going to need to figure out what to do about this. The times interviewed James Oberg and Sara Seager for the requisite "balance", but it's clear that this is some breathless newsroom editor ball-dropping.
jps ( talk) 05:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Fun cocktail party conversation starter. "What is the relationship between Blink 182 and Budget Suites of America?" jps ( talk) 15:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Dennis Overbye on keeping your wits about you: [53]. Sigh. jps ( talk) 14:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Proffer opinions, all.
jps ( talk) 22:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
He has an article and an editor is pushing his stuff into Ikom Monoliths. See [55] and Ikom%20monoliths'&f=false about a book on which he collaborated. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) The main author of the book is Catherine Obianuju Acholonu. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Are these fringe Bulgarian books actually published?. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Scientology. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor thinks the reception section violates NPOV because it is too negative towards his bogus claims. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Update: The subjects of cold fusion and parapsychology, broadly construed, are now subject to a topic ban at Wikiversity. [56] All resources related to these two topics are either pending deletion [57] or have already been deleted. [58] Any future work on these topics will be subject to pre-approval by our research review process. Any attempt to create new resources on these topics without pre-approval will result in speedy deletion. As an aside, v:User:Abd is currently blocked for long term disruption [59] and v:User:Ben Steigmann is blocked for too many policy violations to enumerate here. [60] If anyone notices activity at en-wv in violation of the topic bans and user blocks described above, the appropriate forum is v:Wikiversity:Request custodian action. -- mikeu talk 00:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Cold fusion. This is the fringe nonsense that
user:Abd was sanctioned for advocating here, leading to his eventual ban for block evasion.
It looks to me like there are multiple issues here that are being conflated:
A deletion request at en-wv is the wrong venue for addressing #2 & #3, and the latter two concerns are not valid reasons covered in our policy for deleting a resource. This noticeboard is also not an appropriate venue for any of those three concerns. IMHO, cross-wiki and/or off-wiki issues should be brought up at meta. I am more than willing to discuss any concerns related to activity on wikiversity or other wikimedia sites. Feel free to ping me and point me to a talk page. I would like to respectfully request that this notice be closed as there is no reasonable action that an admin here could take against a user that is indef community banned. Also, it is contributing to contentious exchanges on my home project. -- mikeu talk 21:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing we can do here about the free-for-all that is Wikiversity. I've never been convinced that the general public distinguishes between the different WMF projects, but that's another issue for another day. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The resource that was aping Wikipedia's cold fusion content has been apparently slated for deletion which is a very positive development, in my humble opinion. That's not the end of it, though, so I encourage those who are concerned about this kind of pseudoscience shuffling to comment at Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Parapsychology. jps ( talk) 15:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Another article on Low field magnetic stimulation was recently merged to Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy and the final article also seems to refer to Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which is a technique that I am familiar with via psychological research (I've been zapped with TMS millions of times with no ill effects - but also no spectacular increase in "wellness" either!). This article now seems a bit of a hodge-podge of different "mag-stim" techniques. It really needs an expert. Famous dog (c) 09:46, 5 January 2018 (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.
Are you still going on about the SPLC? Reminds me of an edit I just made over at JimboTalk [77] Look up what a "concern troll" is (urban dictionary can probably help you). ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 21:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that the SPLC is not properly identifying a fringe theory in the OP? I don't see it. Can we collapse the Guy-aside? jps ( talk) 02:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved the following 2 comments from the section above to this section. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 10:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
SPLC is an RS, they are widely regarded as such by other RS. At least 2 users here need to calm down or take it to ANI, and maybe admin need to look at then and their expressed attitudes toward cooperative editing. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Recently, there was a short discussion at @ Rathfelder:'s talk page, following their removal of the more general categories Category:Alternative medicine and Category:Pseudoscience from pages like Vaginal steaming and Acupuncture. The pages are still included in categories that are subcategories of those. The notion of getting some input from those who watch this page was brought up, and I think it's a good one.
Personally, I think having those broader cats in place, because one has to check what categories a child cat page is in to see if it's a child cat. That's an intuitive system of nesting categories (and I'm not arguing against that system), but it makes it harder for inexperienced editors and casual readers to use the category system.
Consider a hypothetical. There's a reader who wants to learn about Psychic surgery, but can't recall what it's called. But they know it's alt-med, so they go to another alt-med article like Vaginal steaming to see if there's some link. First, the reader needs to know (or discover) that scrolling to the very bottom of the article will show the categories. But of course, there's no alt-med cat there. So the reader then clicks on Category:Asian traditional medicine. Once there, the reader needs to make the unintuitive leap that categories themselves can be categorized, and then scroll down to the bottom of that page. Of course, they then find they have to click through Category:Traditional medicine by location and Category:Traditional medicine before they can finally find a link to Category:Alternative medicine, and finally begin their search for our article on psychic surgery. Pinging @ Roxy the dog: who was also involved. And yes, I'm aware that this could be a much more generalized discussion, but at the moment I'm only concerned with its applicability to fringe topics, because one of the effects of this sort of (perfectly understandable) category sorting is to obscure the fact that we classify many of these pages as pseudoscience or alt-medicine. Even to my jaded old eyes, Category:Asian traditional medicine looks a lot more respectable than Category:Alternative medicine, because some traditional medicines have made it into mainstream medicine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
the reader needs to make the unintuitive leap that categories themselves can be categorized— The first thing on Category:Asian traditional medicine (after the title and excluding meta-text) is "Subcategories", so it's probably not that hard to make the "leap". Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
scrolling to the very bottom of the articleand
then clicks on Category:Asian traditional medicine. It's not that much of a leap to scroll to the bottom again to find the parent categories. I'm not saying that working through the categories is necessarily easy or efficient, just that having found the category in the first place, finding the parent category is not an unintuitive leap. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Another question. How alternative does a remedy need to be to qualify as alternative medicine? Looking at Category:Therapy quite a lot of the articles don't look like mainstream to me. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is to re-add general "Alt-med" and "pseudoscience" cats back to alt-med and pseudoscience articles.
I'm not 100% sure either way on this, so I want to see what the community here thinks. For now, it seems like a good stop-gap, but a change to the cat system (even something as simple as listing parent cats back to the top level prominently on cat pages) could render it meaningless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". In this particular case, both Category:Alternative medicine and Category:Pseudoscience explicitly (and correctly, IMO) include {{ diffuse}}, which says "It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
SUBCAT is designed for cases where including both categories would be entirely redundant— SUBCAT seems to be quite clear in its statements that "Apart from certain [well-defined] exceptions ... an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories ... a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category ...". If you think those sentences in SUBCAT are wrong or ambiguous, please propose a change to the guideline. If we think one of the well-defined exceptions applies, then we should use the appropriate template to say so.
one could argue that the "logical requirement" criterion for applying SUBCAT is not met— If you're referring to "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second ... then the first category should be made a subcategory ... of the second." , which subcategory do think should not be in which parent category?
... citing SUBCAT at all would seem to me an attempt to apply policy for the sake of policy— It's a guideline (which I know carries less weight) not a policy, but either way isn't the point of a guideline that we should generally follow it? That's why we have them, to give some consistency. I know this not an official RfC, but WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding explicitly says "If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies or style page." (Again, if you think the guideline is wrong, please propose a change to it at WT:CAT.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course an alternative would be to make all the bottom-level subcats of pseudoscience and alt-med non-diffusing-subcats and this all goes away... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Anyone bored and cares to swing a hatchet? Child prodigy, predictions, conspiracy allegations - " this place has got everything" Ravensfire ( talk) 14:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I may take a crack at writing a proposal this weekend. If anyone is interested, here is as good as any a place to express it. I'll be sure to ping all those who are in this conversation. jps ( talk) 20:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
"The modern far right is crisscrossed with pseudo-scientific research into lost Aryan super-civilizations, biblical giants, ancient astronauts and the occasional inter-dimensional alien." Doug Weller talk 19:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The bigger problem we have is with the pages about the programs themselves. For example, if you read through Ghosthunters, you wouldn't necessarily know how implausible the premise of the show was in spite it being called a " documentary" television show. (This is just a random example; I'm too busy to document them all in entirety.) jps ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network (AVN) is a deceptive anti-vaccination group that has been ordered to change its name, include disclaimers on its website, and has been stripped of nonprofit status, due to its publication of misleading information about vaccines. In the article Australian Measles Control Campaign ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I believe it is inappropriate to cite AVN's demonstrably false claims from their own website, even though we do so primarily in order to say they are wrong. A claim that is significant will be reported in reliable independent secondary sources and can be cited from there. A claim that is not covered by reliable independent secondary sources, is almost certainly not significant, and using an unreliable primary source solely so that we can cover how wrong that source is, seems to me to be a rather fundamental failure of Wikipedia principles.
It would be good to have better sourcing, the source for Wooldridge's statmente gives me a 404, should the whole section be removed as OR until we find better sources? Tornado chaser ( talk) 23:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Natasha Demkina ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's about time we revisit this nonsense. WP:FLASHINTHEPAN, quite obviously (not so obvious last decade when the article was subject to a lot of argument). However, the stale article now reads like a weird snapshot of a media circus. Better sourcing, less sensationalism, etc. would be nice. jps ( talk) 19:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
As discussed in greater depth on the talk page of this article. There is a widespread Fringe theory, an example of medical
WP:QUACKERY that continues to be insinuated and promulgated by some in the media and political sphere, often by use of
weasel wording, that this individual's death from sepsis, was somehow related to Irish laws on abortion or "denial of abortion". A classic example being, how the introduction of this wikipedia article reads. "Savita died...after being denied an abortion".
Not a single WP:RSMED state that "denial of abortion" played the least bit of a role in her death. Yet, this wikipedia article presents the loaded insination in the lede that. "Savita died...after being denied an abortion".
When WP:RSMED emphatically states "If no high quality source exists for a controversial statement it is best to leave it out; this is not bias."
A grand total of, none, zero, of the WP:RSMEDs mention this politically charged red-herring, neither | the Patient Safety Investigation Report published by Health Information and Quality Authority (Savita Halappanavar [1] or the HSE report, [2] nor the controversially "hand-picked" & apparently "pro-choice" Arkulaman report. None of them support this WP:FRINGE narrative of "denial of abortion" as potentially life-saving. Zero. Yet from how this wikipedia article is written, you are intentionally massaged into thinking it was. Despite all the medical evidence being to the contrary.
In fact, while it is always impossible to prove a negative. We even have the illuminating situation were other WP:RSMEDs, the opinions of a disparate array of the most authoritative medical professionals in the field, we even have these experts all actively bringing this arm-chair doctor "treatment" up, in the negative. That "denial of abortion" played no part. They naturally had to bring this up in the negative, after all the arm-chair medical-insinuation-experts, came out of the wood-work.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 19:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who's right or wrong in the reverts going on here. But I do know from long experience that the winner will be the first one who stops reverting. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 19:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Still not a fringe theory. There are reasonable interpretations of the situation where, if abortion on demand existed in Ireland, it's reasonable to think that Savita would be alive (because, for example, she could have had a procedure earlier in the pregnancy. You've produced evidence that an abortion a few days before her death would not have saved the Savita which is a separate matter. But you have not demonstrated that this idea is actually being pushed as a fringe theory, per se. Being mistaken about how something happened is not the same thing as a fringe theory. jps ( talk) 20:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Tired light ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Licorne ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back at it again with the normal IP accounts. An SPI has been filed, but in the meantime he is likely to begin revert wars. Help is appreciated.
jps ( talk) 18:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
A very interesting topic necessitating more eyes. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 06:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Nikodem Popławski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oh my. This is some self-congratulatory stuff. I'm not sure whether the article deserves existence, clearly the subject fails WP:PROF, and I don't think his appearance in popular press is reliable at all. jps ( talk) 20:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Bharat Jhunjhunwala ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has just been edited by the subject. I wasn't bothered by the edits (other than the email address) but Cluebot reverted him. I was surprised by his edit as the article hadn't suggested he was fringe, but the edit stated He propounds the theory that the Prophets of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims on the one hand and Hindus on the other hand were the same persons. The persons whom the Jews, Christians and Muslims worship as Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham and Moses were the same persons as those whom the Hindus worship as Swayambhu Manu, Indra, Vaivaswat Manu, Rama and Krishna. Moses, who was the same person as Krishna, led the Exodus from the Indus Valley to Yisrael. Basis of this argument is that the geographical details given in the scriptures and archaeological evidence match with these Prophets having lived in the Indus Valley. The living traditions are amenable to “capture” hence only those living traditions may be accepted which match with the geographical and archaeological evidence. Note that he actually did receive the claimed award. I added the link to Panchjanya (magazine) which I also edited to give information about its link to the ruling party in India, which for those who are unaware, pushes fringe beliefs. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Eben Alexander (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alexander has returned to edit this article. Two minor unexceptionable edits and then a major pov one which I've reverted and told him to take to his article's talk page. Might need some eyes. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
"Paranormal researcher" up for deletion. Others might find something; I found nothing in print. Mangoe ( talk) 20:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hall of Records ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I gave this article a light editing yesterday, to make it clear that there is no mythology involved with a "Hall of Records", a term invented by Edgar Cayce, and to remove the following text:
The Hall has been said by some historical commentators, including Manetho and Plutarch, to house the knowledge of the Pre-Dynastic Founders and latter Egyptians on papyrus, as well as several inscribed golden metal plate scrolls with a partial history of the lost civilisation of Atlantis, much as the Great Library of Alexandria housed Grecian knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}
Despite knowing the term had been invented in the early 20th century, I did do my due diligence to see if I could source it. User:Smuckola reverted me despite the fact that the citation template was 10 1/2 years old with the edit summary "then feel free to find a citation. there's nothing dubious or WP:UNDUEabout it." Unless things have change drastically this restoration of unsourced text shouldn't be done, and it is certainly more than dubious. The article is about the "Hall of Records", not about mysterious golden plates or even the knowledge of Pre-Dynastic founders. Claims that commentators such as Manetho or Plutarch or other "historical commentators", which means in the context those living long ago" about golden plates might be suitable for Atlantis but anything about Egypt's history being hidden would be a separate article if indeed there were proper sources. Unless I see actual arguments based either on sources or policy and guidelines I'll revert it again at some point. If someone here can find a better category than the red-linked "Mythological libaries" I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
For the time being, I just added parent category Libraries. We do not seem to have other articles on mythological libraries.
Now as for Manetho writing about this, how would we know? Manetho was a Hellenistic Egyptian priest who wrote the "Aegyptiaca", a book on the history of Egypt. Most of his work is now lost. What he have are fragments and summaries of his work by other writers, such as Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Jerome, John Malalas, and George Syncellus. And some of the fragments are contradictory to each other.
With Plutarch, a Roman-Greek priest, we have more of his works preserved. However his most famous work Parallel Lives, is a group of biographical accounts of various historical (and a few mythological) figures. The historical setting is from the 13th century BC to the 1st century AD. Is there any specific work of Plutarch used as a source here? Dimadick ( talk) 23:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Tengri currently has a link to Dingir (a Sumerian word), with a citation dating back to the 50's, which cites research from the 20's, that states that the Turkish and Sumerian Languages are related (they're not).
When I put in an edit request to have the link removed, I was told that I had to provide "a source that characterized the Sumerian-Turkic connection as fringe research".
Would anyone care to chime in on this? 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
References
The user above (IP account 74.70.146.1) has been already reported for edit-warring in the article Dingir. There are reliable and verifiable sources that points out that the Sumerian Dingir might be a loan from Turkic Tengri/Tengir. Both being the primary gods in the respective religions. Here is the source which is constantly being removed by him without any reason: [1]
References
Languages don't have to be related genetically to possess loan words, so his reasoning here has no basis whatsoever. Regards, Akocsg ( talk) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Widom-Larsen theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The cold fusion "industry" heralded this idea as promising, but twelve years on and still no one takes this idea seriously except cold fusion true believers (man they hate it when you call them that). I am trying to decide whether it is worthy of inclusion. My instinct is "no", but would like other opinions.
jps ( talk) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There are huge problems with this idea not the least of which that about 10^11 Bq of beta radiation would be expected for every watt of power generated (the dead grad student problem in a different form). Of course, because essentially no one except true believers gives a care about cold fusion nonsense, nobody seems to have expanded upon this obvious point which is exactly why I think we have an instance of an unnoticed fringe theory. Poorly vetted books and a solitary article from Discover Magazine from five years ago notwithstanding. jps ( talk) 14:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
"physicists will propose dozens of theories before the phenomenon is adequately explained","anomalies observed in experiments". This assumes facts not in evidence: namely that there are any phenomena that need explaining or that there are any anomalies that are something more than pathological science. It's also not true that this is "one of the few cold-fusion/LENR theories that has been subject to detailed academic peer review and scrutiny". In fact, this is not subject to much scrutiny whatsoever. There are exactly two non-true-believer sources that I can find that treat the idea with the necessary independence. I'm not looking for any outcome at all, but the way this "theory" is being described in Wikipedia currently is not, I would say, doing readers any service. jps ( talk) 03:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not particularly impressed with the quality any of your responses to the fundamental points. Citing h-indices for entire journals and arguing that Discover Magazine is magic is, well, precious. I'll wait for some other responses. jps ( talk) 00:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Opinions welcome.
jps ( talk) 12:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
What brought my attention to it was its removal from the pseudoscience category. There are interesting recent edits to review. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 15:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Subject is making major POV edits to their own article. [9] despite my warning. I went to COIN but no response. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
An interesting new draft — Paleo Neonate – 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The Society for Psychical Research has now has an online encyclopedia to compete with Wikipedia articles on parapsychology. They claim that Wikipedia's articles on psychical topics are too skeptical and they attempt to 'balance' the case with their own articles. [10], Having had a look at their articles it seems their agenda is to claim various psychics and mediums were actually genuine. Their article on Dean Radin claims he is doing legit science [11] and claims his Wikipedia article was highjacked by skeptics. I have noticed that this "Psi encyclopedia" has started to pop up on various Wikipedia related articles as a reference. I believe any case of this website should be removed. The website seems to be very negative about Wikipedia. What do you guys think about this? Should it be blacklisted? 78.108.46.82 ( talk) 05:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a section in this article called "Difficulties in assessment, media hysteria and unscientific claims". It was a mess. First it made claims in wikipedias voice on medical "facts" with non-MEDRS sources. It then had a couple of paragraphs deriding these claims in a very editorial tone. You can see this version here.[ [12] Anyway I deleted and tidied up what I could [13]. I am still not very happy with the result. This is not a topic I am overly familiar with, so I would like to see what others think. Personally I am leaning to deleting the whole mess of a section, but we may lose a baby in the process. Any ideas or help appreciated. AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be teased out of marginal or unreliable sources. Does this meet WP:PROF? 82.21.88.44 ( talk) 11:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, the National Health Service has announced plans to stop doctors prescribing homeopathy, herbal and other "low value" treatments. It hopes to save almost £200m a year by ending what the head of the service called a "misuse of scarce" NHS funds. Link -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
There are many sites to crappy journals in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 ( talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
[SPAM DETECTED] [A.F.D. FILED] [RESULT=DELETE] [ FIRE!!! ] .--------------. .-------------. .-------------. .-------------. | o | | | | | \ o / | | \`. | .'/ | | /( )\ | | -- + -- | | --(+)-- | |-- *NUKE!* --| |______/_\_____| | | | |_____/|\_____| |__/_'_|_'_\__| '--------------' '-------------' '-------------' '-------------'
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
A second one, actually. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Astrologer BLP with interesting, primary sourced claims. — Paleo Neonate – 08:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Finland does not exist. Mangoe ( talk) 17:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
"A model consistent with Aircosmic Theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomenon such as extra-sensory perception (ESP)". — Paleo Neonate – 22:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has labelled a 2016 journal article by scholar Mahesh Shankar as FRINGE. The full citation here:
The abstract says:
As the dispute over Kashmir broke out in 1947, a plebiscite of the people of the state offered a mutually acceptable and ostensibly fair path out of the imbroglio. Critics have often laid the blame on Nehru, and the territory’s salience to India, for why a plebiscite was never held. Based on primary documentation, this article makes the case that it was not a lack of commitment to the formula, but rather Nehru’s deeply held strategic and reputational fears that motivated, first, the setting of what Delhi saw as firm but fair pre-conditions, and after the conclusion of the US-Pakistan military pact in 1954, the complete rejection of the plebiscite option.
According to the editor, the fact the article goes against the grain and disagrees with the majority of sources (but not all) that were published earlier makes it FRINGE. What is your view? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Scholars have similarly pointed to Nehru’s occasional expression of skepticism about the wisdom and practicality of holding a plebiscite
Most prominent accounts of the Kashmir dispute attribute Nehru’s role in the failure to achieve peace to the immense nationalist, strategic, and even emotional value India’s first prime minister attached to the territory
In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."
It is visible to all readers that Shankar is propounding an idea which contradicts the mainstream views in this topic. He admits it himself
"It particularly addresses critics’ claims—in Pakistan and in the scholarly
community—that the failure of the plebiscite option owed itself solely to Nehru’s
intransigence"
Scholars have similarly pointed to Nehru’s occasional expression of skepticism
about the wisdom and practicality of holding a plebiscite
"Most prominent accounts" of the Kashmir dispute attribute Nehru’s role in
the failure to achieve peace to the immense nationalist, strategic, and even
emotional value India’s first prime minister attached to the territory
.
[3]
Being in a 'scholarly' source is irrelevant to the fact that it is an idea without wider acceptance in the scholarly community, this is explicitly admitted by the 'scholar' who authored this theory. This source is a revisionist account and revisionist accounts not accepted by the wider scholarly community are fringe regardless of whether they're published in peer-reviewed journal articles or not. It is a matter of common sense that this Shankar source is not anything but fringe.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 03:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
References
This survived AFD two and a half years back on no consensus. It has the classic Energy Catalyzer-style list of every last little sales detail, so you know it's important. One GScholar hit and six GBook hits.
BTW this is likely my last FT/N submission as I haven't been able to make a new article in a long time, and getting bad cats and articles deleted is hardly a way to do business. Mangoe ( talk) 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
"A lot of people, including celebrities like NBA player Kyrie Irving and Tila Tequila, have publicly said in the past that they think our planet is as flat, and attendees at a conference held this week in Cary apparently agree. The Flat Earth International Conference put on a sold-out a meeting Nov. 9-10 at the Embassy Suites in Cary.
According to the group's website, registration fees to attend the conference ranged from $27 (for online streaming) all the way up to $249 for a VIP package. Several attendees apparently drove campers to the event and parked them in the hotel parking lot while the conference was underway.
Convention organizers paid for a billboard advertisement that was erected in late October along Route 401.
The group of people who believe the Earth is flat has gained momentum in recent years and been the subject of social media feuds and several national news reports.
The convention in Cary was set to feature 14 speakers and include exhibitions and panel discussions about topics that included: NASA and other space lies; Flat Earth with the scientific method; and waking up to mainstream science lies."
http://www.wral.com/flat-earth-conference-held-in-cary-/17105359/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
A vast chunk of it is devoted to Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson's fringe book The Lost Gospel. Most of it, although now revised, was added here by AncientScrolls100 ( talk · contribs) who has been pushing these sources into various articles. The article on their book looks as though it needs work, and AncientScrolls100 has clearly used Barrie Wilson's home page as a source for review snippets [15] at Wilson's BLP. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
An IP, 40.134.67.50 ( talk), has been going around to articles removing mentions related to Beall's list. More eyes would be helpful on the articles they've been editing such as Stephanie Seneff, Oncotarget, etc. Especially since there's been a history of socking and disruptive editors on the subject, the IP citing wikilinks like a somewhat experienced editor getting into potential WP:DUCK territory, but I'm not familiar enough with recent ongoings in the topic area to check it out further very quickly. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/10/31/former-qb-bizarre-conspiracy-theory-nfl/
Key quote:
- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
"The Bible says that you become like your idol that you worship"
Where does it say that if you worship a god, you become a god?
And I think you missed something on the source text. After all the mumbo-jumbo on how the NFL dehumanizes American audiences: "He goes on to say that this is what causes the country to get into so many wars."
And there I thought the United States has been fighting wars since the 18th century. Dimadick ( talk) 08:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This is about using his books on military history as a source. That's not fringe but he definitely is, so I think the RSN discussion is relevant to editors here. I've raised this at WP:RSN#Are books by an ex-Nazi writer of fringe books on Atlantis, etc RS for military history? Doug Weller talk 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Frank Collin as a source? He is a former Neo-Nazi, who was kicked out from a Neo-Nazi party due to a conviction for molesting children. He has since turned into a New Age writer, whose main claim to fame is supporting the historicity of Atlantis and Lemuria. Dimadick ( talk) 08:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mind Control -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I removed 2 paragraphs from the article Serpent Mound sourced to fringe author Ross Hamilton. He's an Atlantis/giant nephilim/stars of Draco enthusiast who sometimes does lectures with notorious fringer Graham Hancock. Also, there is currently a minor kerfuffle surrounding the site concerning the Ohio Historical Society and some new age groups no longer being permitted to hold events at the site. I do not know if anyone will show to "set the record straight" here, but some extra eyes on the article for awhile might not be a bad idea. Cheers. He iro 22:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Redirect just changed into an article. Quite a few problems including poor sources and stating disputed event as fact. No time now to fix. Doug Weller talk 06:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Are there any new claims in the book? It supports the controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which concerns comet impacts and an extinction event at 12,900 BP. The hypothesis is disputed because it seems to contradict a number of archaeological and palaeontological data. Dimadick ( talk) 09:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This looks incredibly fishy to me. Guy ( Help!) 23:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Mass edits being done by an IP who seems to be dominating this article. He inserted a sentence which claimed that some of the arguments used by mythicists are accepted by mainstream academia and linked to two blogs. 139.99.130.220 ( talk) 20:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This was just posted at Talk:Bastyr University. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I note that the July dates that the account were active coincide rather nicely with this interesting story. Things that make you go, "hmm." jps ( talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Currently at MfD. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 10:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMO conspiracy theories.
Comment please!
jps ( talk) 02:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
And now!
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsanto public relations activities.
jps ( talk) 19:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't really want to get sanctioned over edit warring here, so please see Chicken or the egg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
User:D1gggg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been adding a lot of questionable stuff, with poor English and weird layout. He's a fairly new editor and has been extremely active lately, also apparently trying to scrub any links to this article from anywhere else on Wikipedia. I don't know if this is the best place to bring this up (ANI seems like overkill), but I'm not sure wheat else to do here. I really don't have the time or patience to chase down everything that he's been doing, so any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 03:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:DENY |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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. For the most egregious example, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier&diff=809663502&oldid=809659332 "We now know that Fusion GPS executives are being uncooperative with the investigation and have pleaded the 5th; the Clinton campaign funded part of the Steele dossier, there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton, and the FBI also funded part of that dossier." User needs a block. 209.140.43.55 ( talk) 09:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
|
"An internal Wikipedia forum meant to combat conspiracy theories" has to be this place. Interesting article, too: A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
These one-time editors’ lack of experience became clear when they began voting in favor of keeping the article on Wikipedia – a practice not employed in the English version of Wikipedia since 2016, when editors voted to exchange the way articles are deleted for a process of consensus-based decision through discussion.Mmm? The vote-and-discussion hybrid method of handling issues has been ongoing for a while. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I looked at this fellow's Google Scholar profile and at least on that basis his wiki-notability with respect to WP:PROF is at best borderline. We have lots of bios on borderline or non-notable academics that slide through under the radar because no one is really looking. What seems to have happened here is that people started looking. My interpretation is that his article wasn't deleted because he is a creationist (we have lots of articles on creationists), but because his creationism brought the scrutiny that all BLPs should have but too often don't. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It would require a change in policy. My guess is the community would not be okay with it. jps ( talk) 20:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, part of what we tell people who are trying to get a fringe-related article published is to get noticed by reliable sources. Here's an example of this sort of thing happening. Makes our job harder when they do this sort of thing, but I can imagine the way that the article would develop now would be "... is a paleontologist who in 2016 began to argue against evolution and in favor of creationist points. A fellow the Discovery Institute, he achieved a level of media fame after his Wikipedia biography was deleted after community consensus determined that he did not fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Subsequent complaints promoted by the Discovery Institute's public relations team were picked up by Haaretz and the Christian News Network."
However, this seems to be something of a flash in the pan. They must be really excited to have gotten Haaretz's notice. But the penetration beyond that seems rather pitiable.
jps ( talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Some new fringey material added to this already fringe-heavy article. An unsourced mention of someone called "Gilligan" leads me to suspect the involvement of somebody who recently had their own page deleted on notability grounds. This should be AfD'd unless better / more sources are forthcoming. Seems to just be promoting one book. Famous dog (c) 07:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
There's some discussion over at WikiProject Mathematics about the article on viXra. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Key quotes:
"Theories discussed during the interview included NASA being controlled by round-Earth Freemasons and Elon Musk making fake rockets from blimps."
" 'John Glenn and Neil Armstrong are Freemasons. Once you understand that, you understand the roots of the deception.' "
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you asking for assistance with an article? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
In cleaning up after someone stuck the Jesus Wife Fragment into a bunch of irrelevant places, I've come across a collection of bios of people who wrote popular books with various more-or-less fringey theories on Christian origins, particularly attached to the Jesus bloodline notion, though there are a few "Paulianity" people too. As far as I can tell, that's what these people are known for, because with a couple of exceptions for people who wrote their book earlier, the bios appeared shortly after their books were published. The bios, however, consistently read like supposedly notable academics who happened to write a book on the side. So I'm looking at the following:
The last two guys are probably always going to have their own articles. The others, I'm not so sure. Most of them seem primarily notable as authors of these controversialist works. Is there cause for merging them back into those articles? Mangoe ( talk) 17:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
See the recent article Thought-Forms (book), it may look scholarly from a first glance, but most of the sources are from Theosophical books and it reads like promotion. There is also Occult or Exact Science?, How Theosophy Came to Me, Man: Whence, How and Whither, a Record of Clairvoyant Investigation (all of the sources are Theosophical), From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan, The Occult World, K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. The same pattern here, all created by the same editor. There are others.
Another example, The Esoteric Character of the Gospels, Philosophers and Philosophicules etc. Basically if you strip these articles down there would be only a handful of reliable neutral sources that discuss these books. The user making these articles SERGEJ2011 only edits in relation to Theosophy, I suspect this user is associated or works for the Theosophical Society Adyar. 139.99.131.38 ( talk) 07:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
"are these book reviews of probably non-notable books"
Book reviews? I think you did not notice the years of publications in some of these books. One dates to 1901, another to 1886, etc. They are over a century old. Dimadick ( talk) 08:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
His recent article Christianity and Theosophy cites:
Ellwood R. S. (16 August 2011). "Bailey, Alice Ann Latrobe Bateman". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017. ———— (November 2000). "Christian Ritual in Theosophical Perspective". Quest. Theosophical Society in America. 88 (6): 225–227. Retrieved 26 October 2017. ———— (7 April 2012). "Christianity, Theosophical Approaches to". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017. ———— (2012-03-15). "Leadbeater, Charles Webster". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017.
The " Theosopedia" is not a reliable source. It is a public wiki used by Theosophists that contains little to no reliable sources. 139.99.131.38 ( talk) 02:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
SERGEJ2011 has been adding the Theosopedia reference to a number of articles, [18]. They should all be removed. 139.99.131.38 ( talk) 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Epoch Times#Carries a lot of fringe material. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Mind you I was a bit shocked to see it used as so many China related articles, including BLPs, [20] considering that it hates the Chinese government. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone mentioned this on the
WP:RDS. A quick look suggests to me they're right to be concerned e.g. Facial toning may not only be beneficial as a means of remaining looking youthful from the additional oxygen and nutrients supplied by the blood reaching the facial tissues but may also positively affect the functions of the sensory organs, (the eye, ears, nose and tongue) from increased stimulation of the neural pathways within the cranial nerve of the human brain that affect the sensory systems
. Some of the sources for the overall article at least look to be peer reviewed articles (although probably not MEDRS) but others are things like Chinese Holistic Health Practices, Daily Mail, Vogue Italy.
Nil Einne (
talk) 16:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a current SPI open about this user but as he is promoting fringe theories I mention it here so people can monitor the article because I believe this will be on-going on other articles. The user in question Ben Steigmann is a psychic believer who argues that J. B. Rhine's experiments actually demonstrated clairvoyance and telepathy. He uploads his POV version of the article [21] on his "Rhine Revival" account many times. He then deletes it knowing that his version will stay on the Wikipedia database. He then cites his Wikipedia edits as a 'valid' source on his anti-Wikipedia/pro-parapsychology research project on Wikiversity [22]. His project claims practically all Wikipedia articles are wrong on parapsychology and that all psychics were basically genuine. He has also been doing this sort of thing on the Frederic W. H. Myers article recently, uploading huge chunks of fringe material and spam from his Wikiversity project and then removing it so it is still stored in the database and he can link to it. I have requested that his edits are striked and they are entirely removed from the database but this has not yet happened.
As this user is doing this on two parapsychology articles, it is likely he is doing it on others on different accounts. Has anyone noticed a similar pattern on any other articles? If you do it is likely the same person. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 15:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I cannot access revdeleted edits to see their patterns. It seems that a lot of text is being copied. It would be interesting to know if those texts typically include common links which would suit for reporting at WT:WPSPAM for potential blacklisting... — Paleo Neonate – 06:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
An interesting new article that appears to require much work. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 00:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Loughan via the "Academics and educators" deletion-sorting list. Posting here on account of the claim he invented a free-energy gizmo out of "a coffee tin, two coils, a spoon and wire". XOR'easter ( talk) 18:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Dewey Lake Monster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regional legend rendered sensational. I've trimmed back the crap somewhat, but it'll probably grow back quickly. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There are several articles in Wikipedia that descibe a hypothetical "para-Austronesian" language group, but these articles do not provide any references that describe it. Is it possible to find any reliable sources (outside of Wikipedia) that describe this hypothesis in detail? Jarble ( talk) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche ( Spanish: Mapuche Ancestral Resistance, RAM) is an organization in Argentina that wants territories that they claim belonged to the Mapuche indigenous peoples, and who uses violence and vandalism to voice their protests. Some call them a terrorist organization, others prefer to use more politically correct terms. However, I'm having problems with some users that frequently add a fringe theory that says that the RAM does not exist, and that it would be just a big deception crafted by intelligence agencies in order to use political repression. I'm not misrepresenting the edits: see the current lead. And in support of this theory we have the senator Pino Solanas, a local priest, and some journalists. A deeper check shows that Solanas belongs to a minor left wing party, that got less than 1.5% of the vote in the previous primary elections and could not even run in the main elections (see here). The local priest is just that. And those "journalists" belong to unreliable sites with very poor reputation, such as "Página 12" or "La Vaca").
Real and noteworthy politicians do acknowledge the existence and actions of this group, such as the vicepresident, The Justicialist Party (the main party of the opposition), province governor Alberto Weretilneck (a province governor is an office analogous to that of a US state governor), the Chilean government, etc.
We may acknowledge the existence of this fringe theory, but in a lower section, treated as such, and confronted with the mainstream views. Not as it done now, that they cast doubts on the existence of the group everywhere. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought that what was I supposed to do, to bring the other contributors so this is not personal vs personal view; But ok... what I'm saying, again, is ram does not exist because there is No proves of his existence...and if you are argentine, you know that false flag illegal operations by intelligence services is habitual, a few months ago in the protest march for Santiago Maldonado case in buenos aires I saw a police group dress as civilians, screaming anarquia(¿?) then breaking cameras of those journalists who doesn't support the gob (here a link to a right wing journalist talking about this, not an oppositor of the gov) [27]; it happened since the 70's (e.g. alfredo astiz); So far there is 2 dead people, at least one murdered by police men and NOT A SINGLE PROVE of an armed mapuche guerrilla...this idea could be pretty laughable if there wasn't people murdered. Here, a deputy, not an oppositor but a member of the actual government, is scandalized and worried about all this:[ [28]] Is this enough for you? What you are doing should not be allowed. alejandro6 ( talk)
Ok, you are getting agressive now. (Cry?). You please indicate me how to call other people, I called 2 of the main editors of the article because of the sources they used. However you just made it clear what is this all about, you are defending your political party view (which is dangerous and racist) by bringing the macri vs. kirchner stuff that has nothing to do here. For the last time, where do you have a proof (cause the government doesn't) that there is a mapuche armed guerrilla instead of a fringe of the intelligence service? Mapuches barely can buy shoes. RAM manifest? done by who? Give me a link to any confiscated fire wheapons by the law, or any report of the true identities of those 5 masked big guys that set fire right in front of the police, then walking to a truck and leaving with the police not even trying to arrest them. Of course it started under C. Kirchner government; that's why many organizations standed against of implementation of Proyecto X, there is even an article here, just go read it [ [29]]. Me and other users did posted links to interviews and declarations of real representants of Mapuche communities giving their full names speaking about all this, (besides deputies -not even leftists, god help us...), journalists and the bishop of bariloche) not some wiki entry -about chilean events ¿?- as you are bringing. Here is the Major of Bariloche talking about this, he doesn't know about the ram nor think any incident had to do with it [30], However I think it's useless to explain you anything, cause you are doing propaganda (a dangerous one, being already a murdered mapuche 3 days ago) here, and you should be banned by vandalism. (Edit, just on more link that you will surely ignore, another deputy claims RAM is a made-up enemy [31]; Alejandro6
If you (as well as the law) think there is an illegal fact or organization going on you most prove it, (specially if there is a murdered involved) not the other way around. Still you (or the government) don't have a prove that any Mapuche killed anyone, nor there is an armed mapuche gueriilla in Argentina(btw if you honestly believe such delusional thing I don't think this conversation can go any further). The one real fact so far is that gendarmerie murdered one mapuche 3 days ago (and we still don't know what happened to Santiago Maldonado. And, the we'll ignore her about the link to the deputy I posted, I want to know who is WE, and why you are unable of doing your vandalism on the spanish section of the same article on wikipedia as you are doing here. Alejandro6
it's ok with me to move it; I would prefer not to do it myself to prevent mistakes, I'm still not entirely familiar with wikipedia functions. To Cambalachero, you said it, when someone voices a conspiracy theory, it does not matter who is her. that's exactly what you, part of argentinean gov. and some press are doing. That's my point. Alejandro6
barcus I just copied the discussion into the Talk of the article; do I delete it from here? Thanks Alejandro6
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Johan Masreliez.
I also submitted Masreliez's theorem for CSD.
jps ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps not surprisingly, I've filed a new SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurtan~enwiki. jps ( talk) 16:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Likewise, !voting !keep with problematic rationales that are rehashing of previous rationale given by other sockpuppeting accounts is time-consuming. The reason this is an "investigation" rather than a conviction is because we don't know what the situation is. Third parties will make the determination and this will all be over in a matter of days. Wikipedia is a time sink because we really don't have good protections against the sort of problems that having content curated by pseudonymous editors causes. You've made your case, I've made mine, let's let others look into the situation, okay? jps ( talk) 16:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
How exciting!
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez's theorem.
jps ( talk) 16:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Warner (aka Bill French) also runs something called The Center for Political Islam. What makes him fringe, I think, is his pseudoscientific statistical method that he thinks shows the truth about Islam. I hope one of these sources mentions it, I can't recall if I copied the url or not. See [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The Discovery Channel's "What on Earth" has a broadcast coming that people are trying to use to prove that Adam's Bridge was built by Rama. [39] [40] This is going to be a big deal for Hindu nationalists. [41] I can't find much on "What on earth" except this. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't deal with fringe topics that often, so I would appreciate a second opinion on whether the subject is notable or not. The article relies on the subject's own website to a large extent and is a subject of current edit warring. I'm wondering if AfD is the way to go here. Please also see:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been getting a stream of slightly pestering emails from an (unindentified) individual wanting me to recuse myself editing from this article, and this prompted me to have a fresh sweep for sources in case we were missing anything substantial. Imagine my surprise when this turned up this book in which I play an (unwitting) bit part! Our article probably could be fuller, and with this kind of activism going on Macrobiotic diet might be an article that fringe-savvy editors could usefully add to their watchlists. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
According to all standard genealogical and as far as I can tell all biographical sources, Alexander Hochberg died on 22 February 1984. We seem to have a busy little beaver who asserts that he was a collective of secret agents who lived until 18 October 1988. The article seems to be a mass of false statements, probably on behalf of the busy little beaver, who asserts that "the false Alexander" adopted one Max Heelein, who "inherited his titles". The article needs to be reverted back, I think, to a version before this bizarre editing started. I only noticed this when changes were made to Daisy, Princess of Pless to add the false death date and history. I've reverted that, but further advice on the Alexander Hochberg article would be appreciated. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Energy Catalyzer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a boring subject, but it looks like gatekeepers believe that the lazy reporting of mutual settlement is the only thing we should say about the lawsuit that ended last year. We, of course, all know that the long con is long, but it does the reader no good to not indicate that the "settlement" as it was, entailed Rossi "walking away" from the lawsuit (the source says as much). jps ( talk) 23:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC) @ Insertcleverphrasehere: for an argument. jps ( talk) 23:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a "law" proposed by Adrian Bejan that appears to have no currency outside his close circle. The article is blatant WP:SYN. I have nominated for deletion, but others may be sufficiently aware of the theory to be able to turn it into a neutral article that accurately reflects its status (if indeed it has any). Guy ( Help!) 09:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Bluntly, this looks bogus to me, and I have AfD'd it, but that could be my bias. Please review. Guy ( Help!) 09:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
has re-sprouted. Quite apart from anything else, what I wonder is "homeopathic surgery" ? Alexbrn ( talk) 10:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Comic relief. jps ( talk) 17:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
From the Arizona Republic (Phoenix, Arizona), Wednesday, July 18, 2007: [43] dead link
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The article on Aron Barbey is an obvious autobiography, edited by himself and IP addresses from his university. The only other edits have been removing obvious puffery - and even then, there's precious little else in the article. What caught my eye is the fact that he's associated with a Frontiers journal, and promulgates a field called "Nutritional Cognitive Neuroscience", which was linked in his autobiography not to a Wikipedia article but to a journal article in Frontiers. Virtually all the cites in the article are primary references to his won work, and most of those are in the Frontiers journal he edits. Which is a massive red flag.
So, I suspect we have a woo-monger here, but I don't know whether the article needs to be nuked, or expanded to cover reality-based critique, if any exists. Guy ( Help!) 16:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Promoted by charlatans to chemotherapy patients, but, as the article notes, "Research on the effects of deuterium-depletion on living cells has been very limited with less than a dozen peer-reviewed research papers available via PubMed in mid-2011". Which is not WP:SYN at all, oh no. Guy ( Help!) 09:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Recently created over a redirect, appears to be about a new age fringe writer. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 03:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Recent persistent removal of WP:PSCI material, I have to leave so additional watchlisters welcome. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 03:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
May I please ask for some participation at Talk:Overton window#Vox video on Overton window. Thanks.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 21:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
https://boingboing.net/2017/12/08/dr-pappy-shaw.html
http://www.save-squaredancing.com/history.htm
Alternative theory: The Slave Roots of Square Dancing
https://daily.jstor.org/the-slave-roots-of-square-dancing/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon ( talk • contribs)
A new/IP user has brought three sources they claim indicate continuing research in cold fusion/LENR from NASA. Unfortunately the sources themselves don't identify themselves as being cold fusion/LENR papers. They have been making strenuous arguments in favor of inclusion on the basis that they are continuing Pons's and Fleischman's research despite these sources not citing or acknowledging Pons or Fleischman anywhere. This seems like a clear case of WP:SYN but other editor's opinions are requested. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Key quote:
"Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
At least the claim that a Japanese whaling boat once caught a dinosaur sounds legit.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to spoil anybody's fun but I would point out that the article that kicked this discussion off is from 5 years ago and from a Scottish tabloid newspaper. Also it seems odd to ask whether dinosaurs live today, today of all days, on which we do our best to eat as many of them as possible. Anyway, I did a quick bit of Googling and, while I was saddened to see that the story does not seem to be a hoax (as I had hoped), it does seem that a quantum of the most basic sanity/dignity eventually prevailed as only one year later the ludicrous claim was dropped. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to explain to a new editor that this edit which uses [47] as a source. Neither the site nor Thompson, whose book on the issue is self-published, are reliable. It might help if a second person explained it also. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Watchlisted. He iro 22:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Coast to Coast AM#Recurring guests. This has no criteria, few sources and is being used to publicse fringe. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Incited panic with a failed earthquake prediction 30 years ago. Today there's an IP user edit warring to make our coverage of this pseudoscientist misunderstood genius fair. Need more outside opinions on it, because I'm "biased".
Geogene (
talk) 06:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear. [48]
This one is going to be a pain. It's already beginning: [49].
We're going to need to figure out what to do about this. The times interviewed James Oberg and Sara Seager for the requisite "balance", but it's clear that this is some breathless newsroom editor ball-dropping.
jps ( talk) 05:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Fun cocktail party conversation starter. "What is the relationship between Blink 182 and Budget Suites of America?" jps ( talk) 15:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Dennis Overbye on keeping your wits about you: [53]. Sigh. jps ( talk) 14:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Proffer opinions, all.
jps ( talk) 22:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
He has an article and an editor is pushing his stuff into Ikom Monoliths. See [55] and Ikom%20monoliths'&f=false about a book on which he collaborated. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) The main author of the book is Catherine Obianuju Acholonu. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Are these fringe Bulgarian books actually published?. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Scientology. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor thinks the reception section violates NPOV because it is too negative towards his bogus claims. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Update: The subjects of cold fusion and parapsychology, broadly construed, are now subject to a topic ban at Wikiversity. [56] All resources related to these two topics are either pending deletion [57] or have already been deleted. [58] Any future work on these topics will be subject to pre-approval by our research review process. Any attempt to create new resources on these topics without pre-approval will result in speedy deletion. As an aside, v:User:Abd is currently blocked for long term disruption [59] and v:User:Ben Steigmann is blocked for too many policy violations to enumerate here. [60] If anyone notices activity at en-wv in violation of the topic bans and user blocks described above, the appropriate forum is v:Wikiversity:Request custodian action. -- mikeu talk 00:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Cold fusion. This is the fringe nonsense that
user:Abd was sanctioned for advocating here, leading to his eventual ban for block evasion.
It looks to me like there are multiple issues here that are being conflated:
A deletion request at en-wv is the wrong venue for addressing #2 & #3, and the latter two concerns are not valid reasons covered in our policy for deleting a resource. This noticeboard is also not an appropriate venue for any of those three concerns. IMHO, cross-wiki and/or off-wiki issues should be brought up at meta. I am more than willing to discuss any concerns related to activity on wikiversity or other wikimedia sites. Feel free to ping me and point me to a talk page. I would like to respectfully request that this notice be closed as there is no reasonable action that an admin here could take against a user that is indef community banned. Also, it is contributing to contentious exchanges on my home project. -- mikeu talk 21:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing we can do here about the free-for-all that is Wikiversity. I've never been convinced that the general public distinguishes between the different WMF projects, but that's another issue for another day. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The resource that was aping Wikipedia's cold fusion content has been apparently slated for deletion which is a very positive development, in my humble opinion. That's not the end of it, though, so I encourage those who are concerned about this kind of pseudoscience shuffling to comment at Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Parapsychology. jps ( talk) 15:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Another article on Low field magnetic stimulation was recently merged to Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy and the final article also seems to refer to Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which is a technique that I am familiar with via psychological research (I've been zapped with TMS millions of times with no ill effects - but also no spectacular increase in "wellness" either!). This article now seems a bit of a hodge-podge of different "mag-stim" techniques. It really needs an expert. Famous dog (c) 09:46, 5 January 2018 (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.
Are you still going on about the SPLC? Reminds me of an edit I just made over at JimboTalk [77] Look up what a "concern troll" is (urban dictionary can probably help you). ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 21:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that the SPLC is not properly identifying a fringe theory in the OP? I don't see it. Can we collapse the Guy-aside? jps ( talk) 02:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved the following 2 comments from the section above to this section. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 10:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
SPLC is an RS, they are widely regarded as such by other RS. At least 2 users here need to calm down or take it to ANI, and maybe admin need to look at then and their expressed attitudes toward cooperative editing. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Recently, there was a short discussion at @ Rathfelder:'s talk page, following their removal of the more general categories Category:Alternative medicine and Category:Pseudoscience from pages like Vaginal steaming and Acupuncture. The pages are still included in categories that are subcategories of those. The notion of getting some input from those who watch this page was brought up, and I think it's a good one.
Personally, I think having those broader cats in place, because one has to check what categories a child cat page is in to see if it's a child cat. That's an intuitive system of nesting categories (and I'm not arguing against that system), but it makes it harder for inexperienced editors and casual readers to use the category system.
Consider a hypothetical. There's a reader who wants to learn about Psychic surgery, but can't recall what it's called. But they know it's alt-med, so they go to another alt-med article like Vaginal steaming to see if there's some link. First, the reader needs to know (or discover) that scrolling to the very bottom of the article will show the categories. But of course, there's no alt-med cat there. So the reader then clicks on Category:Asian traditional medicine. Once there, the reader needs to make the unintuitive leap that categories themselves can be categorized, and then scroll down to the bottom of that page. Of course, they then find they have to click through Category:Traditional medicine by location and Category:Traditional medicine before they can finally find a link to Category:Alternative medicine, and finally begin their search for our article on psychic surgery. Pinging @ Roxy the dog: who was also involved. And yes, I'm aware that this could be a much more generalized discussion, but at the moment I'm only concerned with its applicability to fringe topics, because one of the effects of this sort of (perfectly understandable) category sorting is to obscure the fact that we classify many of these pages as pseudoscience or alt-medicine. Even to my jaded old eyes, Category:Asian traditional medicine looks a lot more respectable than Category:Alternative medicine, because some traditional medicines have made it into mainstream medicine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
the reader needs to make the unintuitive leap that categories themselves can be categorized— The first thing on Category:Asian traditional medicine (after the title and excluding meta-text) is "Subcategories", so it's probably not that hard to make the "leap". Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
scrolling to the very bottom of the articleand
then clicks on Category:Asian traditional medicine. It's not that much of a leap to scroll to the bottom again to find the parent categories. I'm not saying that working through the categories is necessarily easy or efficient, just that having found the category in the first place, finding the parent category is not an unintuitive leap. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Another question. How alternative does a remedy need to be to qualify as alternative medicine? Looking at Category:Therapy quite a lot of the articles don't look like mainstream to me. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is to re-add general "Alt-med" and "pseudoscience" cats back to alt-med and pseudoscience articles.
I'm not 100% sure either way on this, so I want to see what the community here thinks. For now, it seems like a good stop-gap, but a change to the cat system (even something as simple as listing parent cats back to the top level prominently on cat pages) could render it meaningless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". In this particular case, both Category:Alternative medicine and Category:Pseudoscience explicitly (and correctly, IMO) include {{ diffuse}}, which says "It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
SUBCAT is designed for cases where including both categories would be entirely redundant— SUBCAT seems to be quite clear in its statements that "Apart from certain [well-defined] exceptions ... an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories ... a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category ...". If you think those sentences in SUBCAT are wrong or ambiguous, please propose a change to the guideline. If we think one of the well-defined exceptions applies, then we should use the appropriate template to say so.
one could argue that the "logical requirement" criterion for applying SUBCAT is not met— If you're referring to "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second ... then the first category should be made a subcategory ... of the second." , which subcategory do think should not be in which parent category?
... citing SUBCAT at all would seem to me an attempt to apply policy for the sake of policy— It's a guideline (which I know carries less weight) not a policy, but either way isn't the point of a guideline that we should generally follow it? That's why we have them, to give some consistency. I know this not an official RfC, but WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding explicitly says "If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies or style page." (Again, if you think the guideline is wrong, please propose a change to it at WT:CAT.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course an alternative would be to make all the bottom-level subcats of pseudoscience and alt-med non-diffusing-subcats and this all goes away... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Anyone bored and cares to swing a hatchet? Child prodigy, predictions, conspiracy allegations - " this place has got everything" Ravensfire ( talk) 14:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I may take a crack at writing a proposal this weekend. If anyone is interested, here is as good as any a place to express it. I'll be sure to ping all those who are in this conversation. jps ( talk) 20:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
"The modern far right is crisscrossed with pseudo-scientific research into lost Aryan super-civilizations, biblical giants, ancient astronauts and the occasional inter-dimensional alien." Doug Weller talk 19:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The bigger problem we have is with the pages about the programs themselves. For example, if you read through Ghosthunters, you wouldn't necessarily know how implausible the premise of the show was in spite it being called a " documentary" television show. (This is just a random example; I'm too busy to document them all in entirety.) jps ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)