This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Reviving the following discussion from mid-March (now in Archive 59):
jps, I'm hardly on a mission. While editing the Ian Stevenson article, I naturally followed the link to Paul Edwards (philosopher). To me the article seemed mostly good, but I noticed three shortcomings:
I edited accordingly.
Skeptic from Britain, you wrote, "I will wait and see what happens." Well, to start something happening, let me say: I hope that if I continue to edit these two articles--Ian Stevenson and Paul Edwards--we will work together as colleagues to improve the articles by making them more informative, more accurate, and more even-handed, regardless of our own points of view. How does that seem to you?
Thank you.
Cordially, O Govinda ( talk) 05:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This article has a troubled history due to editing by the subject, particularly around his failed libel suit against people who published a critique of some of his ideas. An editor with limited experience is insistent on changing the lede to include, e.g. "Controlling soot is the fastest way to begin to control global warming and it will likewise improve human health" - not a view I can find widely supported, and not something I think we can state as fact in Wikipedia's voice in this way. More eyes on this would be appreciated, especially anyone who is familiar with the field. Guy ( Help!) 10:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I came across Premastication while resolving old tags. The health section has been tagged as biasing Fringe Medicine. I was hoping someone more familiar with MED/RS and access to the cited journals could help me determine if this tag is necessary. I would like to know if we can remove it or how easy it may be to fix. Most of the journals seem like reasonable quality (I removed a section not reliably sourced). Thank you. AIRcorn (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Identitarian movement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I know this is more politically fringe than scientifically fringe, but we're getting some users insisting that a movement based on kicking out everyone who isn't white somehow isn't white nationalist. Ian.thomson ( talk) 16:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm...pretty sure this is basically a Russian government advocated conspiracy theory, and for my own part, I can't confirm that basically any reliable source whatsoever has covered this. But I'm open to being shown I'm wrong, and would very much like a second opinion. It's sourced to this, which looks an awful lot like deliberate misinformation. GMG talk 14:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Well the dictionary definition fits, he emphatically stated it (in fact he uses the word Affirm). Seems to be then to be an accurate quote of what he said.
Slatersteven (
talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Today also, Lavrov said the US and UK are playing children's games instead of providing evidence. I didn't know before i read it here that Moscow apparently "had earlier called for a meeting of the UN chemical-weapons watchdog, the OPWC, on April 2" to have “an honest conversation” about the Skripal case; but Lavrov, in this source, notes that Britain seemed to have no interest in establishing the truth. [7] Wakari07 ( talk) 16:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Lay of the PA's please people. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Hat this now please. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC) |
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Institut Nova Història regarding the addition of Institut Nova Història to a large number of articles. This 'institute' is founded on the belief that there has been a centuries-long conspiracy by Castilian Spaniards to scrub the accomplishments of Catalans. Among historical figures they claim were actually Catalan are Columbus, Da Vinci, and Cervantes (who, of course, used the pseudonym, William Shakespeare). The article itself lays out their fringe status in the lead, but an editor has been adding them as a See Also to many articles. They have now agreed, I think (language skills are an issue), not to add it back to the historical figures they claim, but they still want to add it to the pages of many current politicians whom they say hold similar beliefs (though have no direct association with the organization). The question under discussion is whether this is an appropriate use of See Also, or just fringe-spamming. If anyone has an opinion on this, drop a note there. Agricolae ( talk) 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Heh... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
See this topic from March.-- Auric talk 23:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
"A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round." [3] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
"A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round."
I am not that surprised. Some time ago I watched a YouTube video where random passerby people (several of them college-aged) in an American city were asked basic questions concerning geography. Several of them did not know that Africa was a separate continent, and a few of them were convinced that Mount Rushmore was located in Australia. In Greece where I live, Americans have a poor reputation (as either insane people or poorly-educated people, often depicted as such in Greek comedy), though I often wonder what kind of educational system they have. Dimadick ( talk) 11:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
This kind of survey can say anything that a news channel wants to promote. The exact text at the site says YouGov, a British market research firm, polled 8,215 adults in the United States to find out if they ever believed in the “flat Earth” movement. Only 66 percent of young millennials answered that they “always believe the world is round.”. This means that approximately 0.003% of the US population was polled. Not sure what size of the sample as defined as young millenials. Nothing is being said what the survey was about. I mean, why exactly should anyone take this page seriously? -- Wikishagnik ( talk) 10:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an article by the banned Paul Bedson about a fringe chronology by Laurence Waddell. Not surprisingly I just removed a quote he used that looked as though it might be praising the chronology without its full context. I don't see what the whole, possibly inaccurate, chronology does for Wikipedia more than the section in Waddell's biography. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Old article I came across when I was more WikiYoung than today, about a fringe-pusher of some repute. Beyond the usual puffery that I try to clean up shortly, the article makes many claims with dubious sourcing; for instance, the claim that Raymond Damadian offered financial support when Ling's laboratory got defunded. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I need help at Talk:Shroud of Turin. The shroudies are burying me in claims and references, and I simply don't have enough time to properly address the situation and still meet certain real-world obligations. Note: I am offering triple the normal pay for editing a Wikipedia article. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:NPOVN#Christ myth theory. Just fyi. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
An AfD for a parapsychologist seems relevant here. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Folks, what should we do about list of cryptids? It has two crucial problems:
What we've got here is a relic of the past, a leftover from the days of yore when cryptozoologists were allowed to run free on the site and use it as their personal Pokédex (if you're unfamiliar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, please read this — it's not anything like, say, folkloristics). Of course, the Great Reclaiming has been well underway for a while now to improve Wikipedia's folklore coverage, yet this list still exists. So, what do you recommend that we do with this thing? Simply redirect it to cryptozoology or... ? :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'm just seeing a list of fringe stuff with absolutely no scope (any creature or entity form the folklore record can fall within its parameters) that cannot be sourced and attracts drive-by edits. This sounds to me like this article just needs to redirect to Cryptozoology. Any arguments to the contrary before I start discussion about this elsewhere or before I turn it into a redirect? :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You've been campaigning against this page for years, including multiple discussions and even an AfD which was closed as snow keep. Now you're claiming there's consensus on this page (without even so much as a notice on the article talk page) to redirect. That's just disruptive. Open a discussion there or send it back to AfD if you want it gone. Withholding more substantial arguments until that time. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 23:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
consists of me completely rewriting cryptozoology to GA standardsWhen I actually look at the article for the first time in a while, you completely rewrote cryptozoology to nowhere near GA standards. It's now a tiny section on "terminology, history, and approach" and a giant section on "reception and criticism" and that's it. Also,
and editing essentially every associated article connected to the topic-- and you're disputing "campaigning" (I didn't use that term in relation to anything but the list page, but it sounds like you're disputing that it's limited to the list rather than disputing that it's an appropriate word). Also, regarding the numerous issues -- in your revert you mentioned that it's been tagged for years... yes, because it was you who tagged it and has been dissatisfied with other attempts to change the list. I'm done engaging with this here, however. If you would like to propose a major change to the article, do it on that talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This thread continued off board, but Rhododendrites raises a valid point: List of cryptids is a pseudoscientific content fork of lists of legendary creatures. Please consider weighing in over at Talk:List_of_cryptids#Merge_proposal_with_lists_of_legendary_creatures. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudomathematics (2nd nomination). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Chronically infected by shroudies. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced there is an ongoing discussion about what sources are and are not reliable regarding the Shroud of Turin. It would be helpful if some knowledgeable editors from this noticeboard would look over the discussions and comment on the decisions being made. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Rwbest has engaged in tendentious editing of the article on Mark Z. Jacobson, who is a controversial figure in the real world due to his attempted use of libel law to silence scientific criticism, and on Wikipedia due to his editing of his own article.
At DRN, DGG suggested blocking Rwbest per WP:NOTADVOCACY. That would seem to be an option, but Rwbest does have a non-trivial edit history. That said, evidence from the Dutch Wikipedia suggests that some of his edits there are distinctly WP:FRINGE. I do not know if that is the case here. I would ask for a topic ban from Jacobson, and probably from zero-carbon more broadly, but whether it's worth helping Rwbest avoid an outright ban probably depends on how people view Worldwide energy supply, which is essentially a monograph by him. The Banner certainly has a beef with Rwbest, as the history of that article shows, but Ronz and others have also reverted his edits elsewhere.
So, is with worldwide energy supply article cromulent? Should I be advocating a topic ban or a simple block? Guy ( Help!) 15:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
You made a sweeping statement without evidence.Please read WP:BATTLE, and skim the rest of WP:NOT while you are there. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Before Alex Jones, Art Bell was the king of woo. Sadly his article is in such poor shape that unless it's drastically improved I don't think it will get posted to RD under WP:ITN. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I tried to clean up the article on the so-called Resonnant cavity thruster, and got reverted. Could someone weigh in in the discussion on the talk page? Basically, Resonnant cavity thruster is supposed to generate propulsion by sending microwaves into a cavity. It is supposed to operate in space without ejecting reactive mass, so it would be a very excellent mode of propulsion indeed. Unfortunately, the device suffers from very specific specific practical and theoretical problems. The practical problem is that it doesn't work, and the theoretical problem is that it is proven theoretically that such device doesn't work ( Newton's third law and such). There have been several tests which don't disprove that the device can produce a very small amount thrust, very near the limits of the experimental error. Apparently this is enough for some people to defend that this design and continue testing it, but it seems to be about as useful as homeopathic apothecary. Heptor talk 14:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The latest attempts to get the Fringe Conspiracy Theories back into the article. here - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:38, 12 April 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.
This is about Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Densusianu is fringe, namely including fringe authors in a mainstream history article. I have stated that WP:DRN is not the proper channel to advocate for such inclusion. By fringe authors I mean Nicolae Densusianu and Protochronist authors.
The gist of the matter:
Dacia Preistorică by Nicolae Densușianu is a close encounter of the WP:FRINGE kind. All Iovaniorgovan could quote from among the contemporary "scholars" are Protochronist authors and their walled garden. Per WP:ONEWAY pseudohistory is not welcome in a mainstream history article.
Source for ND's book is "mystical delirium": Dan Alexe (2 August 2016). Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti. Humanitas SA. p. 95. ISBN 978-973-50-4978-2. (Alexe's book is of the popularized science sort, but it was published by the prestigious publishing house Humanitas — prestigious by Romanian standards).
Here is an article by Zoe Petre: [20], one by Mircea Babeș: [21], and one by Eugen Ciurtin: [22]. All of these articles treat ND's book with high contempt, noting that there is nothing new about such contempt from notable Romanian historians in the past 100 years. The articles exemplify such contempt with quotes. They note that all the interest for ND's book was from dilettantes and that his book was not appreciated by professional historians. (ND had some serious historical contributions, but not in respect to the Antiquity.) The verdict of conscious Romanian historians is unanimous: ND's book is pseudohistory/fantasy trying to pass for history. It is totally ignored by the international scholarship and rejected by the Romanian academics by consensus. As Ciurtin notes, nobody (i.e. scholars) reads ND's book any longer, this is shown by consulting the somewhat recently published historical scholarship.
In respect to the claim of Dacian continuity, this is an odd claim and I would like to see mainstream sources supporting it. It should not be conflated with the theory of Daco-Roman continuity which, although not proven, is taken seriously as an explanation of the origin of Romanians. I.e. stating that there is a purely Dacian continuity, with little or no Latin influence is an oddball in respectable historical scholarship (Protochronists are by definition eccentric and marginal, thus not a respectable position in historical scholarship). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
According to historian Lucian Boia, Drăgan promoted an extreme version of protochronism, which claimed that the Romania was the cradle of civilization, and the Romanian people the oldest in Europe:
As the author of We, the Thracians (1976) and editor of the periodical of the same title (Noì, tracii) that was launched in 1974, he was the leading figure of an entire movement aimed at amplifying the role of the Thracians in European history, a movement supported by all sorts of amateurs (even a lawyers’ group!) but also by some less than scrupulous professionals (among them the archaeologists Dumitru Berciu and Ion Horaţiu Crişan). In the periodical Noi, tracii it was possible, for example, to claim that the ancestors of the Romanians lived 100,000 years ago, eloquent proof that the Romanian people is the oldest in the continent, if not in the world. As for the extent of the Thracians’ territory, Drăgan generously allows them almost half of Europe, centered, evidently, on the present-day space of Romania.<ref>Boia, Lucian, ''History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness'', Central European University Press, Budapest, 2001, p.105</ref>
Behind the populations known in ancient times as Dacians and Getae there was for many thousands of years a genial, powerful and glorious nation, which much time before the Trojan times [the Trojan war, sung in Iliad], founded the first vast empire of the world, established the first cultural unity of Europe and established the basis of moral and material progress in West Asia and North Africa
Alexandru D. Xenopol stated "The theory of the author that Dacians have established the first civilization of the humankind shows that it is a product of chauvinism, not of science". Vasile Pârvan, in his monumental work, Getica, mentions the author and his work - "his fantastic novel Dacia preistorică, full of mythology and absurd philology, which from its publication has awakened wonder and unbounded enthusiasm among the Romanian archaeology dilettantes"<ref>Quoted by M. Babeș</ref>.
:Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
— WP:DUE
The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.
This discussion does not belong here. It belongs on the Talk page of the article this is about. This page is for notifying people who are interested in fringe topics that something fringey is going on somewhere. That has happened by Tgeorgescu's first contribution here. All the rest of this discussion is happening at the wrong place. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Menk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So, while cleaning up folklore-related articles on Wikipedia, my attention has turned to Wikipedia's Menk article. It appears that this creature stems from the folklore of the Mansi people, a minority group in what is today Russia (see these Google Books hits, for example). The figure has seen very limited coverage in English language folklore studies sources, which isn't surprising given its obscurity to western audiences. Still, with some digging around, I'm sure there's an interesting article to produce here.
Unfortunately, rather than encountering a well-researched piece discussing the development of the figure with factors such as attestations, an etymology, and comparative discussion from folklorists, what I instead found here was the usual monster-hunting pseudoscience ( cryptozoology, use of the term cryptid) that continues to plague so many of our articles on folklore topics. More troubling still, there seems to be an active effort to use sources like visitcryptoville.com and news.theparanormal.ca to promote an idea that the Dyatlov Pass incident may have been a result of the menk, which the authors have gone to pains to paint as a Bigfoot or yeti-like entity (essentially in an emic perspective). Right now the article still includes discussion regarding the "International Center of Hominology", which appears to in fact be a Russian cryptozoology group. (No idea if it consists of say, more than a single person.)
Every now and then, a user appears and reinstates a variety of these links, including stuff from Youtube. Can we get some extra eyes on this article? :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/apr/18/fusion-center-em/
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a university called Liberty University that teaches creationism (the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is 10,000 years old). I've been editing the LU article [23], and as part of my edits I've tried to clearly note that Creationism is a "pseudoscientific" belief. Other editors are pushing back at this and are saying that we should note identify creationism as pseudoscience. [24] Which of the following sentences is more appropriate:
To me, the second sentence seems clearly in line with WP:FRINGE whereas the first sentence fails to identify creationism as a fringe theory even though it obviously is one. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Does LU teach creationism in science courses? Yes:
LU Creation Studies, which teaches "History of Life" class, says, "The purpose of the Center for Creation Studies is to promote the development of a consistent biblical view of origins in our students. The Center seeks to equip students to contend for their faith in the creation account in Genesis using science, reason, and the Scriptures." This is not science. They begin with the end, cherry picking scientific studies, using the language of science, using rhetoric over evidence, and a host of other techniques, guaranteeing the results. This is pseudoscience or worse. In the recent doc on POV about Bill Nye [32] [33], he pointed out how creationists will push the debate to belief, belief of science. StrayBolt ( talk) 17:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 19:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Bus stop: You are exhibiting WP:IDHT. For the last time, WP:PSCI obliges us label pseudoscience as such. Religion does not always obtrude into the realm of science, any more than Harry Potter stories do. So long as it's confined to the realm of religion no problem. But as soon as religious beliefs claim to bear up the reality of how the world works, we are into PS territory. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"This week, Liberty University students will have the opportunity to see one of their professors, Dr. Marcus Ross, present the case for young-earth creationism (YEC) on the big screen, using his expertise in geology"
"Marcus Ross" is probably Marcus R. Ross, a once legitimate paleontologist who converted to Young Earth Creationism: "In 2007, Ross was featured in a report on creationism. [1] Ross "believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old." This is in contrast to his previous position as reflected when he earned his Ph.D. in geosciences from University of Rhode Island with a dissertation about "the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago." [1] Ross has been criticized by some for taking this academic route, but Ross claims that it only firmed his belief in young earth creationism and has enabled him to find academic ground upon which to base the argument for his scientific credentials. [1]" Dimadick ( talk) 18:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Until recently, this page was used as what it is: a noticeboard. All the chapters were short notices and informed readers about currently hot fringe articles. Now it contains lots of discussions that belong in the Talk pages of the fringe articles. Could we please stop that? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The old fraud himself is unhappy with his article and has started to complain in stiff, legalese words, sometimes about minor inaccuracies, but also about the correct characterization of the pseudoscience he has been strong-arming for, climate change denial. Not very hot at the moment, but could become so. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leszek Pietrzak might interest this noticeboard. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
A brand-new article that seems to me to be one guy's hobby-horse, but I don't know enough to judge properly. Anyone here know about this? -- Calton | Talk 00:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
All of the above is really just a “high falutin,” partially tongue-in-cheek way of suggesting that people need to think more clearly and make more transparent, logical arguments about the relationship of anything to criminal responsibility.The article in its current state is well within WP:HOAX territory. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 17:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The Antonia Fortress is an important ancient building in Jerusalem. An IP wants to insert a fringe theory from the Base Institute, which is a group of unqualified Bible fundamentalists. See Bob Cornuke for information about the group's president, who claims to have found Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant and several other biblical goodies.
I think this material fails both WP:FRINGE and WP:RS but I'm tired of reverting. Zero talk 14:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The shroudies are not only refusing to follow the clear language of our policies and guidelines, but they also refuse to even talk about what the policies and guidelines tell us to do, preferring instead to try to drag every conversation into a debate about the claims of various shroudie sources. I could really use a few more eyes on this one. I am offering double the usual pay. :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
For those intersted: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Günter_Bechly Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Silurian hypothesis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The original topic is two mainstream scientists asking "how would we prove or disprove that an industrialized global civilization didn't far enough in the past that geological activity would have ground all their buildings back into minerals?" If scientists follow through on trying to answer it, the results will be interesting regardless of what is found. Not really fringe.
The topic is not "There were definitely lizard people who developed atomic weapons and their own internet!" That is fringe.
Again, though, the original topic is not fringe, but it's only a matter of time before the topic attracts folks who insist that it's proof that David Icke, Helena Blavatsky, James Churchward, or some dentist were right all along. That's why I'm bringing it up here, to make sure we have extra eyes on it. Ian.thomson ( talk) 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
http://www.newsweek.com/flat-earth-pac-man-edges-907976 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
A single purpose account has made many edits to Michael Persinger recently and when I tried to restore balance to the force lead, it got a bit personal, so I'm going to step back from editing that particular article for a while and would appreciate if somebody else could keep an eye on it. Famousdog (woof) (grrr) 13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
List of cryptids ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3RR by editor removing mention of pseudoscience in lead because "it is only one opinion", etc. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Newsweek story last month. [35] I added it as an EL since I don't have time to edit the article. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Just a heads up that we've got some fringe activity over at black shuck, a ghostly dog from English folklore. This, like may articles on Wikipedia ( see here), was hijacked by cryptozoologists once upon a time (deeply in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, as usual). However, now we've got a user issuing threats and revert-warring to keep a category ("Stop vandalizing cryptid articles or I'm going to report you." ( [36]). I restrict my article reverts to one revert per 24 hours, but this article could use some more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
And so are the Cryptozoologists. Jeffrey Meldrum is just a small example. I have message the WikiProjects coordinators and will be waiting for their input on the issue.--Paleface Jack 02:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm kind of a stickler for second opinions and neutral standpoints. Asking members of the WikiProject for their thoughts on the issue and to see how we should proceed with how we do things there was my main reason for doing that. I've sort of noticed that that WikiProject has been inactive (or semi-active) for a while now. An unfortunate thing that has plagued us over at WikiProject Horror as well. A revamp/resurgence might be necessary in order to save the WikiProject from going "extinct". As for rewording cryptid articles to say that their mythological/legendary seems to regulate them towards that WikiProject. I suggest that we just reworded to say purported (insert species resemblance) rather than legendary/mythological creature since the former seems more accurate.--Paleface Jack 15:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
A question for all concerned, what has the issue of Pseudoscience got to do with whether or not we can include Black Shuck as a Cryptid? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I am going to stop this right here, @ Bloodofox: you need to stop taking every single piece of constructive criticism and difference of opinion personally. I have already explained myself and now you're starting to gang up on people who are offering criticism. That is both unprofessional and inappropriate. I am all for improving articles, especially cryptid-related articles since they've been sorely lacking any sort of attention by editors as of late. I do think if enough information from reliable sources can show that Black Shuck isn't a cryptid then we can strike it off the WikiProject Cryptozoology list. However it must be for a neutral standpoint as having only sources from skeptics is unbalanced coverage. Balanced coverage for BOTH viewpoints is essential. As for DarkKnight, he was just coming here since I really don't deal with this sort of disruption/negative response from editors. I am perfectly capable of defending myself in an argument which unfortunately this has turned into. I'm mainly experienced in editing/expanding articles to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards, this is a whole new thing for me and I was just asking DK (who has experience with this sort of thing) for his advice. All I can say is that I am both confused by this sort of a response from an edit of mine and the negativity generated from a single user.... (sighs) .... I was going to take a short hiatus from major edits for a while so I could focus more on film projects of mine, but considering this I might postpone that until this whole thing is resolved.--Paleface Jack 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
(Slaps palm to face) I give up... This looks like a job for the admins.--Paleface Jack 23:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
"However it must be for a neutral standpoint as having only sources from skeptics is unbalanced coverage. Balanced coverage for BOTH viewpoints is essential."
While I am far from a fan of Bloodofox (and personally think folklorists are unreliable), that has never been the way Wikipedia works. We have a specific policy against false balance:
"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Dimadick ( talk) 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Equal coverage to all perspectives (if they are reliable) while maintaining a neutral standpoint/format is pretty much a given. If one account outweighs the other, then that is unbalanced coverage. Writing/formatting two different standpoints (if such standpoints are "legitimized" such as those by Jeffrey Meldrum) comparisons/ arguments between the shouldn't be accepted as it's not encyclopedic and more around the lines of a debate. Rather, each theory/scholarship should be written so that it remains as transparent and balanced as possible. Any unproven and/or statements are only theories so they should be mentioned as such and only as such. No matter how legitimate a theory might be they are still only theories and unproven. Skeptics have for years been putting out scholarly papers based on their theories on cryptids but a lot of the arguments often result in counter arguments from cryptozoologists that sort of negate the previous theory. I would classify both cryptozoology and theology as different branches of science that haven't been officially legitimized (although I could be wrong) by the skeptics in the scientific community because of the controversy that surrounds them. That would not make them a pseudo-science as Blood of Fox claims since science itself is based on theories and attempts to prove theories by examining purported evidence that might support it. A lot of animals out there were once considered cryptids until evidence proved that they existed. A few examples of this include Mountain Gorillas, Komodo dragons, Giant Pandas, and Pygmy Hippos. ryptozoology is As both DarkKnight and I have stated, BloodofFox has been WP:POV pushing for a while now, trying to merge List of Cryptids with List of legendary creatures to no success. When that has failed he has been making some pretty questionable edits such as removing any Cryptozoology categories from articles on cryptids as well as covertly rewording those articles so that they fit under Legendary/mythology categories (again POV pushing). No matter how much he claims this as being UNDUE , FRINGE, and THREATING, my reversion of his edits and warnings to him to stop have been just that, Reversions of Vandalism/POV pushing and warning him to cease and desist from doing it. When others have reverted or corrected such edits, he has always reverted them to his original edits. When I, being the eccentric person that I am, made a reference to something from my Monster Archives days and realized that it might be misunderstood, I removed it. However BloodofFox has been using it as some sort of threat of administrative action regardless of my following post explaining why I posted and removed it (I doubt he read it). I have tried to explain and be nice about the whole thing but has started to get to the point where I just want this resolved so that I can move on to other things (sighs).--Paleface Jack 18:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Then that would be unbalanced coverage. Criticism, and theories from professionals including cryptozoologists still need included if they are reliable enough sources.--Paleface Jack 23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite discussion above, @ Paleface Jack: appears to be reintroducing fringe material into articles. Note that none of the sources used in the article use the term cryptid. Humanoid reptilians, anyone? :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure I didn't do anything with the reptilian humanoid article. Nice try attempting to pin a non-existent edit on me. Please stop doing this. It's not fun for anyone when someone starts vandalizing articles and ganging up on someone. I'd love to keep what little sanity and brain power I have left on more important matters.:(--Paleface Jack 01:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.... I think?--Paleface Jack 03:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, your feedback is requested at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#External links, about whether links to fringe theories are appropriate in the External links section of an article about such theories. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Per discussion at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#"Fringe", what is the best name for this article?
Candidates so far are:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I was looking around for a Template like a fringe theories sidebar, or a bottom material Nav box, and didn't see anything in Template space, or in the archives here. Is it worth creating a nav box, with grouped lists of links to various hoaxes, fringe theories, conspiracy theories, and so on? OTOH, I'm wondering if there's an undesirable slut shaming effect to being listed there, but OTO, if the articles are properly titled and referenced, it is what it is, and as long as we're vigilant for spamming it should be okay, and could be quite helpful. Any thoughts? Mathglot ( talk) 05:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Several pseudoscience-related articles are currently up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I was afraid of this...(sighs)--Paleface Jack 00:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
-- Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I'd like to draw your attention to List of reptilian humanoids. After noticing a list of "reptilian humanoids" listed as cryptids here (in other words, a classic example of the deepest of the deep fringe — and everybody's favorite — reptilians!) and doing some other general cleaning (lots of confusion here regarding myth vs. legend, etc.), it seems that this list could use more patrolling. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
New editor adding fringe, I've reverted once and am going out to walk my dog. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually I realise I haven't reverted at Ten Lost Tribes. The haplogroup nonsense is there also, as is a lot of OR, but there is a legitimate quote from "
In the Footsteps of the Lost Ten Tribes" by Avigdor Shachan which I checked on Amazon and is accurate. [38] So there are claims for the lost tribes in Korea, although this one is badly written and sourced. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The plot summary keeps on increasing, and it now looks very much as if we're presenting Cliff's Notes rather than an encyclopaedic overview of a book of pseudoscientific piffle. Guy ( Help!) 21:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
A group of AfD discussions have been started for several articles related to this supposed avatar:
The main issue seems to be WP:UNDUE but I suspect there are sourcing and POV issues with them if they were to be kept. Mangoe ( talk) 15:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:SPA, WP:TEXTWALL, WP:IDHT. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
At the very least the sections on his "EXTRAORDINARY BELIEFS" 'documentaries" need cleaning up. "The series is a multi-project film endeavor with an artful approach to complex topics and investigations. Corbell explores the Extraordinary Beliefs of enigmatic people deep within the aerospace, military, conspiracy, extraterrestrial and underworld communities." Lots of poor sources in the article. And the obligatory link farm one expects in an article like this. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Although there was no consensus for its restoration, cryptid whale was recently brought back from the dead ( [39]). Those of you familiar with the usual cryptozoology tomfoolery on Wikipedia will no doubt palm-face at the sight of this because here we have all the usual suspects: deep fringe approaches to biology or folklore and fringe sources masquerading as biology or folklore texts, as well as the application of pseudoscientific terminology (such as cryptid to biology concepts). As expected, a Google Books search for the phrase "cryptid whale" pulls up nothing but deep fringe and pseudoscience sources. Article could use some eyes at the very least, but how to proceed? :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I have substantiated them before. But you're right I will behave myself unless it continues....--Paleface Jack 01:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we have a link to the discussion? Slatersteven ( talk) 07:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Which discussion?Paleface Jack 15:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
If it's about the link to the discussion on the restoration of the article then here it is. Note: There was only one vote to remove it and that was BloodofFox. The rest speaks for itself. Hopefully this helps.:)--Paleface Jack 15:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
BloodofFox not all consensus' that don't vote in favor of removing Cryptozoology articles are done by "the resident cryptozoologists". Please refrain from making unfounded accusations towards things that don't go the way you'd want. The cryptid whale article is notable enough to warrant its existence, all it needs is some cleaning up and given more citations from neutral sources which it has an issue with. But that can be easily remedied... I think.--Paleface Jack 15:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Fascinating story...
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Sidebar,_again, if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
[40] [41] — twice removed — opinion of the Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences that considered socionics to be a pseudoscience. Need your help. -- Q Valda ( talk) 20:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like this needs an overhaul - the lead seems to fail NPOV, there's too much stuff from the Discovery Institute and Philip Johnson in it, needs a better balance of independent sources. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that we use sources like cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org over at list of cryptids ( Talk:List_of_cryptids#Man-eating_trees). (As the article is something of a hive for cryptozoologists, if you're not familiar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, you'll save yourself some trouble by reading this or this first.) :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that's more of a personal opinion rather than an actual thing.--Paleface Jack 20:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Creationist organisation but the bit in the lead "that specializes in original research and the study of scientific and Biblical literature. " seems copied mainly from their website. [43]. The lead has mentioned Creationism for some time but it was changed in April. User:BullRangifer reverted but that didn't stick. The whole article may need an overhaul. In October last year User:Robynthehode noted that nowhere in the article was Creation science challenged, and that's still true. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray may be of interest to the community. Poray self published a book and gave a couple of interviews in which she promoted fringe views on Poles rescuing Jews in the Holocaust. Poray has received very little attention in RSes (at all), however she has been given as an example for this fringe theory ( footnote 94 refrerences here, this is context) or myth ( (footnote 85, search for myth). I'll further note that the existence of the Wikipedia article is being used to justify use of her WP:SPS book in other Wikipedia articles (diffs: [45], [46], [47]). See also Talk:Żegota#Anna Poray - SPS. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
first, to underscore the large number of rescuers; second, to downplay or ignore the low societal approval of rescue activities; and third, not to differentiate among the various among the various categories of rescuers, protectors, and helpers and their motivations. The same tendencies are currently being advocated and fostered by historians and journalists practicing polityka historyczna.(94) As a tool to normalize the dark past, to claim that Polish anti-Semitism and nationalism did not have much of a damaging influence on Polish-Jewish relations, and to restore the image of Poles as....Footnote 94 mentioning an interview of her in a Polish newspaper as an example.
For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul .... interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska, “Nation of Heroes,” Nasz Dziennikin footnote 85 - whose context is
Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll just leave here the idea that the AfD mentioned seems to be populated with a number of people using CAPITAL LETTERS, as ... oddly, do some of the AE reports above this one. Examining the contrib history of some of said editors (not Poeticbent) may be interesting. Just an observation, like ...- the circumstances in this AfD. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Dlaczego tak się stało? - Ten uratowany Żyd nie chciał uznać ich zasług, nie podając powodów. Jestem z nim w kontakcie. Jemu wydawało się, że oni chcieli go zgubić w lesie. Nie bierze on jednak pod uwagę tego, że to były jeszcze dzieci, które dodatkowo żyły pod straszną presją, między zagrożeniem ze strony Niemców i ze strony Ukraińców. Zdaje się on zapominać, że jednak go dwa lata trzymali.- (via google translate) -
Why did this happen? - This rescued Jew did not want to acknowledge their merits, without giving reasons. I'm in touch with him. It seemed to him that they wanted to lose him in the forest. However, he does not take into account the fact that these were still children who, in addition, lived under terrible pressure, between the threat from the Germans and the Ukrainians. He seems to forget that, however, he kept him for two years.. So it seems this is an example of ingratitude. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Nasz Dziennik constantly reminds its readers about the lack of Jewish gratitude for Polish heroism. The most dramatic in tone of those reminders was the interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska from Canada who documents Polish heroism in saving the Jews during World War II. She claimed to have convincing evidence to estimate that `1 million of Poles were saving Jews'. She criticized the `restrictive conditions of Yad Vashem in acknowledging the Righteous Among the Nations' - it almost sounded like a deliberately unjust system that belittles the Polish efforts. Wybranowska made a plea `to erect a memorial wall with the names of all those who saved the Jews because `those Poles are the greatest heroes in the world 17l The article asserted what the title implied, not only a great number of Poles were heroes during the war, Poles in general are a `nation of heroes'.Icewhiz ( talk) 08:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum - note that none of this coverage is sufficient for notability - for a general bio and all the more so under NFRINGE - all the footnote variations above cite the 2004 interview in Nasz Dziennik as one of a few examples of this myth. The PhD dissertation gives this one paragraph, and is mainly focused on the the editorial line of Nasz Dziennik (which is the scope of the work - covering how the Polish right-wing nationalistic press covers Jews - with the Poray interview given as an example of "the most dramatic in tone" of coverage of "lack of Jewish gratitude"). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
As for FORUMSHOPPING - You posted this on 4 additional different panels, NOT in a single, relevant, noticeboard as you claim:
GizzyCatBella ( talk) 08:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
That is, Happy Science and the Happiness Realization Party. Maybe these don't qualify as fringe however, but at first glance he certainly seems to. He was married to a self-proclaimed reborn Aphrodite and now to someone believed by some Happy Science members to be the goddess Gaia. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
In April there was a flurry of activity by a single-minded individual aimed at making Gary Null's biog less damaging. I have rewritten and npov'd a lot of it. Please keep an eye on it. Famousdog (woof) (grrr) 12:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This in Category:Pseudoscience. Is it pseudoscience, fringe science, unproven science, disproven science, or what? -- Calton | Talk 03:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The article is slowly becoming an ad for Chopra, and is presenting the topic as if there was serious study of it. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This is to inform you that there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Alternative medicine, which seems to run foul of WP:FRINGE and WP:ARBPS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Created by the same editor, Tellinger might be notable but he's also fringe, the calendar is nonsense. What's shocking is that "Slave Species of the Gods:The Secret History of the Anunnaki and Their Mission on Earth" is published by Simon and Schuster. [60] The book on Adam's Calendar is published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger. [61] Same publisher for "Temples of the African Gods" and "Ubuntu contributism". Doug Weller talk 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep that is an actual hook approved for the front page.
The article is Young blood transfusion and the DYK "discussion" is at Template:Did you know nominations/Young blood transfusion.
I opened a discussion about that at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Promoting_FRINGE_snake_oil_on_the_front_page.
Perhaps folks can look at the article in the meantime. Jytdog ( talk) 20:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Those of us of a certain age will recall when this was one of the biggest news stories of the 1970's. Unfortunately the article looks like it has become a collection of really fringey conspiracy theories and the like. I opened a discussion on the talk page and tagged the article. Additionally I notified WT:ITALY. Regrettably I have no Italian so while I can definitely say that I smell fringe stuff, I am not in a position to read or make determinations over the sources. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
We have FRINGE pushing here a la Burzynski Clinic. ffs Jytdog ( talk) 02:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.themarysue.com/sinkhole-hellmouth-someone-beep-buffy/ -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This article included assertions of bias sourced from creationists and Conservapedia critiquing our content on evolution, and commentary by Brian Martin (social scientist) supportive of antivaxer Judy Wilyman. Needless to say I do not think either of those constitutes a valid scholarly critique of Wikipedia's accuracy. More eyes would be appreciated. It is my firm view that critiques of our "bias" by WP:FRINGE advocates has no place there, or at least that we would require reliable independent neutral sources that contextualise it. Guy ( Help!) 17:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
An edit war on the page in question has not technically occurred, but users have been brought to the cusp of it. A concerned but somewhat conflict adverse friend of mine feels strongly and asked that I would say something to a relevant party. He feels that the theory that Percy wrote Frankenstein is not being appropriately labeled as a fringe theory and says that when he attempted to resolve this, another editor reverted him.
(I can guess my friend's wikipedia user name from the edit history but as he didn't specifically tell me I will refrain from adding 2+2)
In my opinion, neither editor is sufficiently using the talk page to discuss their concerns. However, I do think the page is giving undue weight to a fringe speculation so I am hoping someone would be willing to look at the article with fresh and disinterested eyes.
IMHO, the page is too biased in one direction and too much of it reads as a persuasive essay rather than an objective literature review of the topic.
Having new sets of eyes review the page and the situation would be most helpful.
Thank you.
Wickedjacob ( talk) 09:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems to have attracted at least two editors very upset about the article. One even calling for editor(s) to be banned. See a couple of threads on the talk page and the recent rewrite. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
See these edits, my comments at the editor's talk page, and a minor point, the translation, the discussion I started on the article talk page. I don't see this 2007 film which seems to have been ignored as a source we should be using. Doug Weller talk 05:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleting sourced material, adding original research and a fringe source. I've reverted but it might be useful if others have it on their watchlist. Note I started this post last night but got logged out, Wikimedia servers got borked, etc. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
https://boingboing.net/2018/05/31/the-time-davy-crockett-met-big.html
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed at least two IP editors, Special:Contributions/90.254.151.253 and Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:BC32:7E00:DD99:F8FC:476B:AF5D, have been adding (mostly) Category:Magic (paranormal) to a lot of articles where this addition may be questionable. In a couple of cases, I have done reversions, as either subcategory of existing category or clearly an inappropriate category to apply. I noticed that another editor, Huntster, rolled a lot of these back on the first-mentioned IP. I'm still leery of category debates because the criteria for applying a categorization still seem a bit unclear to me. Magic itself is not well delineated and sometimes spills over into mythology, folklore, and religion. The impression I'm getting is that these categorizations are being applied as if magic is "real" (as opposed to the scholarly approach the magic (paranormal) article tries to take) and that the editor(s) adding these categories want to claim influence in every conceivable topic. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Li Ching-Yuen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Behold, the strange case of the 250-year old man. The article is filled with extraordinary claims with poor sourcing. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Nice work if you can get it.
https://pagesix.com/2018/06/01/louis-vuitton-hired-a-shaman-to-stop-the-rain-for-fashion-show/
"...while the guru had also been hired to tame the weather at previous shows around the world, skeptical execs at parent company LVMH had recently axed the jet-setting holy man from the budget. But when a downpour unfashionably soaked an outdoor Dior show last week in Chantilly, France, the shaman was back on the payroll..."
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Ganzfeld experiment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Telepathy has been scientifically proven, according to [62]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
As it involves the meeting of deep fringe topics like cryptozoology and Young Earth creationism, members of this board may be interested in the RfC happening at Talk:Living_dinosaur#RfC_on_changing_"Living_dinosaur"_from_a_standard_article_to_a_disambiguation_list_page. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Although the article could use some cleaning up and reworking the material, it is notable enough to warrant it's existence.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 20:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, there are some independent sources that can be added to this. The main reason that Fringe Theory guidelines are there, so that we have balanced coverage and not someone stating one side of theory. Criticism on theories can be added if they are from legitimate sources. That doesn't stop people from attempting to place their own opinions on articles pertaining to anything, including pseudosciences. I have been and always will be a HUGE advocate for balanced and neutral coverage of ALL subjects, the article in question may have a non-neutral standpoint which will need to be fixed and balanced accordingly, but deleting the article seems a bit extreme a measure to take when all it needs is to be rewritten and given more independent sources so that it's in a proper neutral standpoint.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Removing everything and making it a disambig page is basically like deleting the article. You're just removing all information and adding links to "other uses".-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 21:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(sighs) I somehow knew that you would chime in BOF... Thanks for the "positive" input...-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 01:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
References
See [63]. It's based on a UNESCO book, and such books are inevitably political. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
currently foaming at Jonathan Sarfati and edit warring at Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
See
Talk:Jonathan Sarfati#Motion To Strike where the editor insists that ' Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education called Sarfati's Refuting Evolution a "crude piece of propaganda". must be removed from the article. They did, I reverted, they reverted me.
Doug Weller
talk 18:07, 4 June 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. |
Reviving the following discussion from mid-March (now in Archive 59):
jps, I'm hardly on a mission. While editing the Ian Stevenson article, I naturally followed the link to Paul Edwards (philosopher). To me the article seemed mostly good, but I noticed three shortcomings:
I edited accordingly.
Skeptic from Britain, you wrote, "I will wait and see what happens." Well, to start something happening, let me say: I hope that if I continue to edit these two articles--Ian Stevenson and Paul Edwards--we will work together as colleagues to improve the articles by making them more informative, more accurate, and more even-handed, regardless of our own points of view. How does that seem to you?
Thank you.
Cordially, O Govinda ( talk) 05:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This article has a troubled history due to editing by the subject, particularly around his failed libel suit against people who published a critique of some of his ideas. An editor with limited experience is insistent on changing the lede to include, e.g. "Controlling soot is the fastest way to begin to control global warming and it will likewise improve human health" - not a view I can find widely supported, and not something I think we can state as fact in Wikipedia's voice in this way. More eyes on this would be appreciated, especially anyone who is familiar with the field. Guy ( Help!) 10:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I came across Premastication while resolving old tags. The health section has been tagged as biasing Fringe Medicine. I was hoping someone more familiar with MED/RS and access to the cited journals could help me determine if this tag is necessary. I would like to know if we can remove it or how easy it may be to fix. Most of the journals seem like reasonable quality (I removed a section not reliably sourced). Thank you. AIRcorn (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Identitarian movement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I know this is more politically fringe than scientifically fringe, but we're getting some users insisting that a movement based on kicking out everyone who isn't white somehow isn't white nationalist. Ian.thomson ( talk) 16:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm...pretty sure this is basically a Russian government advocated conspiracy theory, and for my own part, I can't confirm that basically any reliable source whatsoever has covered this. But I'm open to being shown I'm wrong, and would very much like a second opinion. It's sourced to this, which looks an awful lot like deliberate misinformation. GMG talk 14:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Well the dictionary definition fits, he emphatically stated it (in fact he uses the word Affirm). Seems to be then to be an accurate quote of what he said.
Slatersteven (
talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Today also, Lavrov said the US and UK are playing children's games instead of providing evidence. I didn't know before i read it here that Moscow apparently "had earlier called for a meeting of the UN chemical-weapons watchdog, the OPWC, on April 2" to have “an honest conversation” about the Skripal case; but Lavrov, in this source, notes that Britain seemed to have no interest in establishing the truth. [7] Wakari07 ( talk) 16:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Lay of the PA's please people. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Hat this now please. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC) |
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Institut Nova Història regarding the addition of Institut Nova Història to a large number of articles. This 'institute' is founded on the belief that there has been a centuries-long conspiracy by Castilian Spaniards to scrub the accomplishments of Catalans. Among historical figures they claim were actually Catalan are Columbus, Da Vinci, and Cervantes (who, of course, used the pseudonym, William Shakespeare). The article itself lays out their fringe status in the lead, but an editor has been adding them as a See Also to many articles. They have now agreed, I think (language skills are an issue), not to add it back to the historical figures they claim, but they still want to add it to the pages of many current politicians whom they say hold similar beliefs (though have no direct association with the organization). The question under discussion is whether this is an appropriate use of See Also, or just fringe-spamming. If anyone has an opinion on this, drop a note there. Agricolae ( talk) 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Heh... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
See this topic from March.-- Auric talk 23:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
"A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round." [3] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
"A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round."
I am not that surprised. Some time ago I watched a YouTube video where random passerby people (several of them college-aged) in an American city were asked basic questions concerning geography. Several of them did not know that Africa was a separate continent, and a few of them were convinced that Mount Rushmore was located in Australia. In Greece where I live, Americans have a poor reputation (as either insane people or poorly-educated people, often depicted as such in Greek comedy), though I often wonder what kind of educational system they have. Dimadick ( talk) 11:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
This kind of survey can say anything that a news channel wants to promote. The exact text at the site says YouGov, a British market research firm, polled 8,215 adults in the United States to find out if they ever believed in the “flat Earth” movement. Only 66 percent of young millennials answered that they “always believe the world is round.”. This means that approximately 0.003% of the US population was polled. Not sure what size of the sample as defined as young millenials. Nothing is being said what the survey was about. I mean, why exactly should anyone take this page seriously? -- Wikishagnik ( talk) 10:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an article by the banned Paul Bedson about a fringe chronology by Laurence Waddell. Not surprisingly I just removed a quote he used that looked as though it might be praising the chronology without its full context. I don't see what the whole, possibly inaccurate, chronology does for Wikipedia more than the section in Waddell's biography. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Old article I came across when I was more WikiYoung than today, about a fringe-pusher of some repute. Beyond the usual puffery that I try to clean up shortly, the article makes many claims with dubious sourcing; for instance, the claim that Raymond Damadian offered financial support when Ling's laboratory got defunded. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I need help at Talk:Shroud of Turin. The shroudies are burying me in claims and references, and I simply don't have enough time to properly address the situation and still meet certain real-world obligations. Note: I am offering triple the normal pay for editing a Wikipedia article. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:NPOVN#Christ myth theory. Just fyi. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
An AfD for a parapsychologist seems relevant here. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Folks, what should we do about list of cryptids? It has two crucial problems:
What we've got here is a relic of the past, a leftover from the days of yore when cryptozoologists were allowed to run free on the site and use it as their personal Pokédex (if you're unfamiliar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, please read this — it's not anything like, say, folkloristics). Of course, the Great Reclaiming has been well underway for a while now to improve Wikipedia's folklore coverage, yet this list still exists. So, what do you recommend that we do with this thing? Simply redirect it to cryptozoology or... ? :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'm just seeing a list of fringe stuff with absolutely no scope (any creature or entity form the folklore record can fall within its parameters) that cannot be sourced and attracts drive-by edits. This sounds to me like this article just needs to redirect to Cryptozoology. Any arguments to the contrary before I start discussion about this elsewhere or before I turn it into a redirect? :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You've been campaigning against this page for years, including multiple discussions and even an AfD which was closed as snow keep. Now you're claiming there's consensus on this page (without even so much as a notice on the article talk page) to redirect. That's just disruptive. Open a discussion there or send it back to AfD if you want it gone. Withholding more substantial arguments until that time. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 23:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
consists of me completely rewriting cryptozoology to GA standardsWhen I actually look at the article for the first time in a while, you completely rewrote cryptozoology to nowhere near GA standards. It's now a tiny section on "terminology, history, and approach" and a giant section on "reception and criticism" and that's it. Also,
and editing essentially every associated article connected to the topic-- and you're disputing "campaigning" (I didn't use that term in relation to anything but the list page, but it sounds like you're disputing that it's limited to the list rather than disputing that it's an appropriate word). Also, regarding the numerous issues -- in your revert you mentioned that it's been tagged for years... yes, because it was you who tagged it and has been dissatisfied with other attempts to change the list. I'm done engaging with this here, however. If you would like to propose a major change to the article, do it on that talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This thread continued off board, but Rhododendrites raises a valid point: List of cryptids is a pseudoscientific content fork of lists of legendary creatures. Please consider weighing in over at Talk:List_of_cryptids#Merge_proposal_with_lists_of_legendary_creatures. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudomathematics (2nd nomination). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Chronically infected by shroudies. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced there is an ongoing discussion about what sources are and are not reliable regarding the Shroud of Turin. It would be helpful if some knowledgeable editors from this noticeboard would look over the discussions and comment on the decisions being made. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Rwbest has engaged in tendentious editing of the article on Mark Z. Jacobson, who is a controversial figure in the real world due to his attempted use of libel law to silence scientific criticism, and on Wikipedia due to his editing of his own article.
At DRN, DGG suggested blocking Rwbest per WP:NOTADVOCACY. That would seem to be an option, but Rwbest does have a non-trivial edit history. That said, evidence from the Dutch Wikipedia suggests that some of his edits there are distinctly WP:FRINGE. I do not know if that is the case here. I would ask for a topic ban from Jacobson, and probably from zero-carbon more broadly, but whether it's worth helping Rwbest avoid an outright ban probably depends on how people view Worldwide energy supply, which is essentially a monograph by him. The Banner certainly has a beef with Rwbest, as the history of that article shows, but Ronz and others have also reverted his edits elsewhere.
So, is with worldwide energy supply article cromulent? Should I be advocating a topic ban or a simple block? Guy ( Help!) 15:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
You made a sweeping statement without evidence.Please read WP:BATTLE, and skim the rest of WP:NOT while you are there. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Before Alex Jones, Art Bell was the king of woo. Sadly his article is in such poor shape that unless it's drastically improved I don't think it will get posted to RD under WP:ITN. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I tried to clean up the article on the so-called Resonnant cavity thruster, and got reverted. Could someone weigh in in the discussion on the talk page? Basically, Resonnant cavity thruster is supposed to generate propulsion by sending microwaves into a cavity. It is supposed to operate in space without ejecting reactive mass, so it would be a very excellent mode of propulsion indeed. Unfortunately, the device suffers from very specific specific practical and theoretical problems. The practical problem is that it doesn't work, and the theoretical problem is that it is proven theoretically that such device doesn't work ( Newton's third law and such). There have been several tests which don't disprove that the device can produce a very small amount thrust, very near the limits of the experimental error. Apparently this is enough for some people to defend that this design and continue testing it, but it seems to be about as useful as homeopathic apothecary. Heptor talk 14:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The latest attempts to get the Fringe Conspiracy Theories back into the article. here - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:38, 12 April 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.
This is about Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Densusianu is fringe, namely including fringe authors in a mainstream history article. I have stated that WP:DRN is not the proper channel to advocate for such inclusion. By fringe authors I mean Nicolae Densusianu and Protochronist authors.
The gist of the matter:
Dacia Preistorică by Nicolae Densușianu is a close encounter of the WP:FRINGE kind. All Iovaniorgovan could quote from among the contemporary "scholars" are Protochronist authors and their walled garden. Per WP:ONEWAY pseudohistory is not welcome in a mainstream history article.
Source for ND's book is "mystical delirium": Dan Alexe (2 August 2016). Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti. Humanitas SA. p. 95. ISBN 978-973-50-4978-2. (Alexe's book is of the popularized science sort, but it was published by the prestigious publishing house Humanitas — prestigious by Romanian standards).
Here is an article by Zoe Petre: [20], one by Mircea Babeș: [21], and one by Eugen Ciurtin: [22]. All of these articles treat ND's book with high contempt, noting that there is nothing new about such contempt from notable Romanian historians in the past 100 years. The articles exemplify such contempt with quotes. They note that all the interest for ND's book was from dilettantes and that his book was not appreciated by professional historians. (ND had some serious historical contributions, but not in respect to the Antiquity.) The verdict of conscious Romanian historians is unanimous: ND's book is pseudohistory/fantasy trying to pass for history. It is totally ignored by the international scholarship and rejected by the Romanian academics by consensus. As Ciurtin notes, nobody (i.e. scholars) reads ND's book any longer, this is shown by consulting the somewhat recently published historical scholarship.
In respect to the claim of Dacian continuity, this is an odd claim and I would like to see mainstream sources supporting it. It should not be conflated with the theory of Daco-Roman continuity which, although not proven, is taken seriously as an explanation of the origin of Romanians. I.e. stating that there is a purely Dacian continuity, with little or no Latin influence is an oddball in respectable historical scholarship (Protochronists are by definition eccentric and marginal, thus not a respectable position in historical scholarship). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
According to historian Lucian Boia, Drăgan promoted an extreme version of protochronism, which claimed that the Romania was the cradle of civilization, and the Romanian people the oldest in Europe:
As the author of We, the Thracians (1976) and editor of the periodical of the same title (Noì, tracii) that was launched in 1974, he was the leading figure of an entire movement aimed at amplifying the role of the Thracians in European history, a movement supported by all sorts of amateurs (even a lawyers’ group!) but also by some less than scrupulous professionals (among them the archaeologists Dumitru Berciu and Ion Horaţiu Crişan). In the periodical Noi, tracii it was possible, for example, to claim that the ancestors of the Romanians lived 100,000 years ago, eloquent proof that the Romanian people is the oldest in the continent, if not in the world. As for the extent of the Thracians’ territory, Drăgan generously allows them almost half of Europe, centered, evidently, on the present-day space of Romania.<ref>Boia, Lucian, ''History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness'', Central European University Press, Budapest, 2001, p.105</ref>
Behind the populations known in ancient times as Dacians and Getae there was for many thousands of years a genial, powerful and glorious nation, which much time before the Trojan times [the Trojan war, sung in Iliad], founded the first vast empire of the world, established the first cultural unity of Europe and established the basis of moral and material progress in West Asia and North Africa
Alexandru D. Xenopol stated "The theory of the author that Dacians have established the first civilization of the humankind shows that it is a product of chauvinism, not of science". Vasile Pârvan, in his monumental work, Getica, mentions the author and his work - "his fantastic novel Dacia preistorică, full of mythology and absurd philology, which from its publication has awakened wonder and unbounded enthusiasm among the Romanian archaeology dilettantes"<ref>Quoted by M. Babeș</ref>.
:Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
— WP:DUE
The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.
This discussion does not belong here. It belongs on the Talk page of the article this is about. This page is for notifying people who are interested in fringe topics that something fringey is going on somewhere. That has happened by Tgeorgescu's first contribution here. All the rest of this discussion is happening at the wrong place. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Menk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So, while cleaning up folklore-related articles on Wikipedia, my attention has turned to Wikipedia's Menk article. It appears that this creature stems from the folklore of the Mansi people, a minority group in what is today Russia (see these Google Books hits, for example). The figure has seen very limited coverage in English language folklore studies sources, which isn't surprising given its obscurity to western audiences. Still, with some digging around, I'm sure there's an interesting article to produce here.
Unfortunately, rather than encountering a well-researched piece discussing the development of the figure with factors such as attestations, an etymology, and comparative discussion from folklorists, what I instead found here was the usual monster-hunting pseudoscience ( cryptozoology, use of the term cryptid) that continues to plague so many of our articles on folklore topics. More troubling still, there seems to be an active effort to use sources like visitcryptoville.com and news.theparanormal.ca to promote an idea that the Dyatlov Pass incident may have been a result of the menk, which the authors have gone to pains to paint as a Bigfoot or yeti-like entity (essentially in an emic perspective). Right now the article still includes discussion regarding the "International Center of Hominology", which appears to in fact be a Russian cryptozoology group. (No idea if it consists of say, more than a single person.)
Every now and then, a user appears and reinstates a variety of these links, including stuff from Youtube. Can we get some extra eyes on this article? :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/apr/18/fusion-center-em/
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a university called Liberty University that teaches creationism (the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is 10,000 years old). I've been editing the LU article [23], and as part of my edits I've tried to clearly note that Creationism is a "pseudoscientific" belief. Other editors are pushing back at this and are saying that we should note identify creationism as pseudoscience. [24] Which of the following sentences is more appropriate:
To me, the second sentence seems clearly in line with WP:FRINGE whereas the first sentence fails to identify creationism as a fringe theory even though it obviously is one. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Does LU teach creationism in science courses? Yes:
LU Creation Studies, which teaches "History of Life" class, says, "The purpose of the Center for Creation Studies is to promote the development of a consistent biblical view of origins in our students. The Center seeks to equip students to contend for their faith in the creation account in Genesis using science, reason, and the Scriptures." This is not science. They begin with the end, cherry picking scientific studies, using the language of science, using rhetoric over evidence, and a host of other techniques, guaranteeing the results. This is pseudoscience or worse. In the recent doc on POV about Bill Nye [32] [33], he pointed out how creationists will push the debate to belief, belief of science. StrayBolt ( talk) 17:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 19:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Bus stop: You are exhibiting WP:IDHT. For the last time, WP:PSCI obliges us label pseudoscience as such. Religion does not always obtrude into the realm of science, any more than Harry Potter stories do. So long as it's confined to the realm of religion no problem. But as soon as religious beliefs claim to bear up the reality of how the world works, we are into PS territory. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"This week, Liberty University students will have the opportunity to see one of their professors, Dr. Marcus Ross, present the case for young-earth creationism (YEC) on the big screen, using his expertise in geology"
"Marcus Ross" is probably Marcus R. Ross, a once legitimate paleontologist who converted to Young Earth Creationism: "In 2007, Ross was featured in a report on creationism. [1] Ross "believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old." This is in contrast to his previous position as reflected when he earned his Ph.D. in geosciences from University of Rhode Island with a dissertation about "the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago." [1] Ross has been criticized by some for taking this academic route, but Ross claims that it only firmed his belief in young earth creationism and has enabled him to find academic ground upon which to base the argument for his scientific credentials. [1]" Dimadick ( talk) 18:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Until recently, this page was used as what it is: a noticeboard. All the chapters were short notices and informed readers about currently hot fringe articles. Now it contains lots of discussions that belong in the Talk pages of the fringe articles. Could we please stop that? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The old fraud himself is unhappy with his article and has started to complain in stiff, legalese words, sometimes about minor inaccuracies, but also about the correct characterization of the pseudoscience he has been strong-arming for, climate change denial. Not very hot at the moment, but could become so. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leszek Pietrzak might interest this noticeboard. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
A brand-new article that seems to me to be one guy's hobby-horse, but I don't know enough to judge properly. Anyone here know about this? -- Calton | Talk 00:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
All of the above is really just a “high falutin,” partially tongue-in-cheek way of suggesting that people need to think more clearly and make more transparent, logical arguments about the relationship of anything to criminal responsibility.The article in its current state is well within WP:HOAX territory. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 17:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The Antonia Fortress is an important ancient building in Jerusalem. An IP wants to insert a fringe theory from the Base Institute, which is a group of unqualified Bible fundamentalists. See Bob Cornuke for information about the group's president, who claims to have found Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant and several other biblical goodies.
I think this material fails both WP:FRINGE and WP:RS but I'm tired of reverting. Zero talk 14:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The shroudies are not only refusing to follow the clear language of our policies and guidelines, but they also refuse to even talk about what the policies and guidelines tell us to do, preferring instead to try to drag every conversation into a debate about the claims of various shroudie sources. I could really use a few more eyes on this one. I am offering double the usual pay. :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
For those intersted: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Günter_Bechly Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Silurian hypothesis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The original topic is two mainstream scientists asking "how would we prove or disprove that an industrialized global civilization didn't far enough in the past that geological activity would have ground all their buildings back into minerals?" If scientists follow through on trying to answer it, the results will be interesting regardless of what is found. Not really fringe.
The topic is not "There were definitely lizard people who developed atomic weapons and their own internet!" That is fringe.
Again, though, the original topic is not fringe, but it's only a matter of time before the topic attracts folks who insist that it's proof that David Icke, Helena Blavatsky, James Churchward, or some dentist were right all along. That's why I'm bringing it up here, to make sure we have extra eyes on it. Ian.thomson ( talk) 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
http://www.newsweek.com/flat-earth-pac-man-edges-907976 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
A single purpose account has made many edits to Michael Persinger recently and when I tried to restore balance to the force lead, it got a bit personal, so I'm going to step back from editing that particular article for a while and would appreciate if somebody else could keep an eye on it. Famousdog (woof) (grrr) 13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
List of cryptids ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3RR by editor removing mention of pseudoscience in lead because "it is only one opinion", etc. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Newsweek story last month. [35] I added it as an EL since I don't have time to edit the article. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Just a heads up that we've got some fringe activity over at black shuck, a ghostly dog from English folklore. This, like may articles on Wikipedia ( see here), was hijacked by cryptozoologists once upon a time (deeply in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, as usual). However, now we've got a user issuing threats and revert-warring to keep a category ("Stop vandalizing cryptid articles or I'm going to report you." ( [36]). I restrict my article reverts to one revert per 24 hours, but this article could use some more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
And so are the Cryptozoologists. Jeffrey Meldrum is just a small example. I have message the WikiProjects coordinators and will be waiting for their input on the issue.--Paleface Jack 02:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm kind of a stickler for second opinions and neutral standpoints. Asking members of the WikiProject for their thoughts on the issue and to see how we should proceed with how we do things there was my main reason for doing that. I've sort of noticed that that WikiProject has been inactive (or semi-active) for a while now. An unfortunate thing that has plagued us over at WikiProject Horror as well. A revamp/resurgence might be necessary in order to save the WikiProject from going "extinct". As for rewording cryptid articles to say that their mythological/legendary seems to regulate them towards that WikiProject. I suggest that we just reworded to say purported (insert species resemblance) rather than legendary/mythological creature since the former seems more accurate.--Paleface Jack 15:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
A question for all concerned, what has the issue of Pseudoscience got to do with whether or not we can include Black Shuck as a Cryptid? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I am going to stop this right here, @ Bloodofox: you need to stop taking every single piece of constructive criticism and difference of opinion personally. I have already explained myself and now you're starting to gang up on people who are offering criticism. That is both unprofessional and inappropriate. I am all for improving articles, especially cryptid-related articles since they've been sorely lacking any sort of attention by editors as of late. I do think if enough information from reliable sources can show that Black Shuck isn't a cryptid then we can strike it off the WikiProject Cryptozoology list. However it must be for a neutral standpoint as having only sources from skeptics is unbalanced coverage. Balanced coverage for BOTH viewpoints is essential. As for DarkKnight, he was just coming here since I really don't deal with this sort of disruption/negative response from editors. I am perfectly capable of defending myself in an argument which unfortunately this has turned into. I'm mainly experienced in editing/expanding articles to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards, this is a whole new thing for me and I was just asking DK (who has experience with this sort of thing) for his advice. All I can say is that I am both confused by this sort of a response from an edit of mine and the negativity generated from a single user.... (sighs) .... I was going to take a short hiatus from major edits for a while so I could focus more on film projects of mine, but considering this I might postpone that until this whole thing is resolved.--Paleface Jack 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
(Slaps palm to face) I give up... This looks like a job for the admins.--Paleface Jack 23:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
"However it must be for a neutral standpoint as having only sources from skeptics is unbalanced coverage. Balanced coverage for BOTH viewpoints is essential."
While I am far from a fan of Bloodofox (and personally think folklorists are unreliable), that has never been the way Wikipedia works. We have a specific policy against false balance:
"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Dimadick ( talk) 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Equal coverage to all perspectives (if they are reliable) while maintaining a neutral standpoint/format is pretty much a given. If one account outweighs the other, then that is unbalanced coverage. Writing/formatting two different standpoints (if such standpoints are "legitimized" such as those by Jeffrey Meldrum) comparisons/ arguments between the shouldn't be accepted as it's not encyclopedic and more around the lines of a debate. Rather, each theory/scholarship should be written so that it remains as transparent and balanced as possible. Any unproven and/or statements are only theories so they should be mentioned as such and only as such. No matter how legitimate a theory might be they are still only theories and unproven. Skeptics have for years been putting out scholarly papers based on their theories on cryptids but a lot of the arguments often result in counter arguments from cryptozoologists that sort of negate the previous theory. I would classify both cryptozoology and theology as different branches of science that haven't been officially legitimized (although I could be wrong) by the skeptics in the scientific community because of the controversy that surrounds them. That would not make them a pseudo-science as Blood of Fox claims since science itself is based on theories and attempts to prove theories by examining purported evidence that might support it. A lot of animals out there were once considered cryptids until evidence proved that they existed. A few examples of this include Mountain Gorillas, Komodo dragons, Giant Pandas, and Pygmy Hippos. ryptozoology is As both DarkKnight and I have stated, BloodofFox has been WP:POV pushing for a while now, trying to merge List of Cryptids with List of legendary creatures to no success. When that has failed he has been making some pretty questionable edits such as removing any Cryptozoology categories from articles on cryptids as well as covertly rewording those articles so that they fit under Legendary/mythology categories (again POV pushing). No matter how much he claims this as being UNDUE , FRINGE, and THREATING, my reversion of his edits and warnings to him to stop have been just that, Reversions of Vandalism/POV pushing and warning him to cease and desist from doing it. When others have reverted or corrected such edits, he has always reverted them to his original edits. When I, being the eccentric person that I am, made a reference to something from my Monster Archives days and realized that it might be misunderstood, I removed it. However BloodofFox has been using it as some sort of threat of administrative action regardless of my following post explaining why I posted and removed it (I doubt he read it). I have tried to explain and be nice about the whole thing but has started to get to the point where I just want this resolved so that I can move on to other things (sighs).--Paleface Jack 18:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Then that would be unbalanced coverage. Criticism, and theories from professionals including cryptozoologists still need included if they are reliable enough sources.--Paleface Jack 23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite discussion above, @ Paleface Jack: appears to be reintroducing fringe material into articles. Note that none of the sources used in the article use the term cryptid. Humanoid reptilians, anyone? :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure I didn't do anything with the reptilian humanoid article. Nice try attempting to pin a non-existent edit on me. Please stop doing this. It's not fun for anyone when someone starts vandalizing articles and ganging up on someone. I'd love to keep what little sanity and brain power I have left on more important matters.:(--Paleface Jack 01:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.... I think?--Paleface Jack 03:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, your feedback is requested at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#External links, about whether links to fringe theories are appropriate in the External links section of an article about such theories. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Per discussion at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#"Fringe", what is the best name for this article?
Candidates so far are:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I was looking around for a Template like a fringe theories sidebar, or a bottom material Nav box, and didn't see anything in Template space, or in the archives here. Is it worth creating a nav box, with grouped lists of links to various hoaxes, fringe theories, conspiracy theories, and so on? OTOH, I'm wondering if there's an undesirable slut shaming effect to being listed there, but OTO, if the articles are properly titled and referenced, it is what it is, and as long as we're vigilant for spamming it should be okay, and could be quite helpful. Any thoughts? Mathglot ( talk) 05:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Several pseudoscience-related articles are currently up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I was afraid of this...(sighs)--Paleface Jack 00:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
-- Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I'd like to draw your attention to List of reptilian humanoids. After noticing a list of "reptilian humanoids" listed as cryptids here (in other words, a classic example of the deepest of the deep fringe — and everybody's favorite — reptilians!) and doing some other general cleaning (lots of confusion here regarding myth vs. legend, etc.), it seems that this list could use more patrolling. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
New editor adding fringe, I've reverted once and am going out to walk my dog. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually I realise I haven't reverted at Ten Lost Tribes. The haplogroup nonsense is there also, as is a lot of OR, but there is a legitimate quote from "
In the Footsteps of the Lost Ten Tribes" by Avigdor Shachan which I checked on Amazon and is accurate. [38] So there are claims for the lost tribes in Korea, although this one is badly written and sourced. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The plot summary keeps on increasing, and it now looks very much as if we're presenting Cliff's Notes rather than an encyclopaedic overview of a book of pseudoscientific piffle. Guy ( Help!) 21:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
A group of AfD discussions have been started for several articles related to this supposed avatar:
The main issue seems to be WP:UNDUE but I suspect there are sourcing and POV issues with them if they were to be kept. Mangoe ( talk) 15:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:SPA, WP:TEXTWALL, WP:IDHT. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
At the very least the sections on his "EXTRAORDINARY BELIEFS" 'documentaries" need cleaning up. "The series is a multi-project film endeavor with an artful approach to complex topics and investigations. Corbell explores the Extraordinary Beliefs of enigmatic people deep within the aerospace, military, conspiracy, extraterrestrial and underworld communities." Lots of poor sources in the article. And the obligatory link farm one expects in an article like this. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Although there was no consensus for its restoration, cryptid whale was recently brought back from the dead ( [39]). Those of you familiar with the usual cryptozoology tomfoolery on Wikipedia will no doubt palm-face at the sight of this because here we have all the usual suspects: deep fringe approaches to biology or folklore and fringe sources masquerading as biology or folklore texts, as well as the application of pseudoscientific terminology (such as cryptid to biology concepts). As expected, a Google Books search for the phrase "cryptid whale" pulls up nothing but deep fringe and pseudoscience sources. Article could use some eyes at the very least, but how to proceed? :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I have substantiated them before. But you're right I will behave myself unless it continues....--Paleface Jack 01:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we have a link to the discussion? Slatersteven ( talk) 07:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Which discussion?Paleface Jack 15:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
If it's about the link to the discussion on the restoration of the article then here it is. Note: There was only one vote to remove it and that was BloodofFox. The rest speaks for itself. Hopefully this helps.:)--Paleface Jack 15:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
BloodofFox not all consensus' that don't vote in favor of removing Cryptozoology articles are done by "the resident cryptozoologists". Please refrain from making unfounded accusations towards things that don't go the way you'd want. The cryptid whale article is notable enough to warrant its existence, all it needs is some cleaning up and given more citations from neutral sources which it has an issue with. But that can be easily remedied... I think.--Paleface Jack 15:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Fascinating story...
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Sidebar,_again, if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
[40] [41] — twice removed — opinion of the Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences that considered socionics to be a pseudoscience. Need your help. -- Q Valda ( talk) 20:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like this needs an overhaul - the lead seems to fail NPOV, there's too much stuff from the Discovery Institute and Philip Johnson in it, needs a better balance of independent sources. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that we use sources like cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org over at list of cryptids ( Talk:List_of_cryptids#Man-eating_trees). (As the article is something of a hive for cryptozoologists, if you're not familiar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, you'll save yourself some trouble by reading this or this first.) :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that's more of a personal opinion rather than an actual thing.--Paleface Jack 20:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Creationist organisation but the bit in the lead "that specializes in original research and the study of scientific and Biblical literature. " seems copied mainly from their website. [43]. The lead has mentioned Creationism for some time but it was changed in April. User:BullRangifer reverted but that didn't stick. The whole article may need an overhaul. In October last year User:Robynthehode noted that nowhere in the article was Creation science challenged, and that's still true. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray may be of interest to the community. Poray self published a book and gave a couple of interviews in which she promoted fringe views on Poles rescuing Jews in the Holocaust. Poray has received very little attention in RSes (at all), however she has been given as an example for this fringe theory ( footnote 94 refrerences here, this is context) or myth ( (footnote 85, search for myth). I'll further note that the existence of the Wikipedia article is being used to justify use of her WP:SPS book in other Wikipedia articles (diffs: [45], [46], [47]). See also Talk:Żegota#Anna Poray - SPS. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
first, to underscore the large number of rescuers; second, to downplay or ignore the low societal approval of rescue activities; and third, not to differentiate among the various among the various categories of rescuers, protectors, and helpers and their motivations. The same tendencies are currently being advocated and fostered by historians and journalists practicing polityka historyczna.(94) As a tool to normalize the dark past, to claim that Polish anti-Semitism and nationalism did not have much of a damaging influence on Polish-Jewish relations, and to restore the image of Poles as....Footnote 94 mentioning an interview of her in a Polish newspaper as an example.
For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul .... interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska, “Nation of Heroes,” Nasz Dziennikin footnote 85 - whose context is
Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll just leave here the idea that the AfD mentioned seems to be populated with a number of people using CAPITAL LETTERS, as ... oddly, do some of the AE reports above this one. Examining the contrib history of some of said editors (not Poeticbent) may be interesting. Just an observation, like ...- the circumstances in this AfD. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Dlaczego tak się stało? - Ten uratowany Żyd nie chciał uznać ich zasług, nie podając powodów. Jestem z nim w kontakcie. Jemu wydawało się, że oni chcieli go zgubić w lesie. Nie bierze on jednak pod uwagę tego, że to były jeszcze dzieci, które dodatkowo żyły pod straszną presją, między zagrożeniem ze strony Niemców i ze strony Ukraińców. Zdaje się on zapominać, że jednak go dwa lata trzymali.- (via google translate) -
Why did this happen? - This rescued Jew did not want to acknowledge their merits, without giving reasons. I'm in touch with him. It seemed to him that they wanted to lose him in the forest. However, he does not take into account the fact that these were still children who, in addition, lived under terrible pressure, between the threat from the Germans and the Ukrainians. He seems to forget that, however, he kept him for two years.. So it seems this is an example of ingratitude. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Nasz Dziennik constantly reminds its readers about the lack of Jewish gratitude for Polish heroism. The most dramatic in tone of those reminders was the interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska from Canada who documents Polish heroism in saving the Jews during World War II. She claimed to have convincing evidence to estimate that `1 million of Poles were saving Jews'. She criticized the `restrictive conditions of Yad Vashem in acknowledging the Righteous Among the Nations' - it almost sounded like a deliberately unjust system that belittles the Polish efforts. Wybranowska made a plea `to erect a memorial wall with the names of all those who saved the Jews because `those Poles are the greatest heroes in the world 17l The article asserted what the title implied, not only a great number of Poles were heroes during the war, Poles in general are a `nation of heroes'.Icewhiz ( talk) 08:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum - note that none of this coverage is sufficient for notability - for a general bio and all the more so under NFRINGE - all the footnote variations above cite the 2004 interview in Nasz Dziennik as one of a few examples of this myth. The PhD dissertation gives this one paragraph, and is mainly focused on the the editorial line of Nasz Dziennik (which is the scope of the work - covering how the Polish right-wing nationalistic press covers Jews - with the Poray interview given as an example of "the most dramatic in tone" of coverage of "lack of Jewish gratitude"). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
As for FORUMSHOPPING - You posted this on 4 additional different panels, NOT in a single, relevant, noticeboard as you claim:
GizzyCatBella ( talk) 08:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
That is, Happy Science and the Happiness Realization Party. Maybe these don't qualify as fringe however, but at first glance he certainly seems to. He was married to a self-proclaimed reborn Aphrodite and now to someone believed by some Happy Science members to be the goddess Gaia. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
In April there was a flurry of activity by a single-minded individual aimed at making Gary Null's biog less damaging. I have rewritten and npov'd a lot of it. Please keep an eye on it. Famousdog (woof) (grrr) 12:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This in Category:Pseudoscience. Is it pseudoscience, fringe science, unproven science, disproven science, or what? -- Calton | Talk 03:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The article is slowly becoming an ad for Chopra, and is presenting the topic as if there was serious study of it. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This is to inform you that there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Alternative medicine, which seems to run foul of WP:FRINGE and WP:ARBPS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Created by the same editor, Tellinger might be notable but he's also fringe, the calendar is nonsense. What's shocking is that "Slave Species of the Gods:The Secret History of the Anunnaki and Their Mission on Earth" is published by Simon and Schuster. [60] The book on Adam's Calendar is published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger. [61] Same publisher for "Temples of the African Gods" and "Ubuntu contributism". Doug Weller talk 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep that is an actual hook approved for the front page.
The article is Young blood transfusion and the DYK "discussion" is at Template:Did you know nominations/Young blood transfusion.
I opened a discussion about that at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Promoting_FRINGE_snake_oil_on_the_front_page.
Perhaps folks can look at the article in the meantime. Jytdog ( talk) 20:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Those of us of a certain age will recall when this was one of the biggest news stories of the 1970's. Unfortunately the article looks like it has become a collection of really fringey conspiracy theories and the like. I opened a discussion on the talk page and tagged the article. Additionally I notified WT:ITALY. Regrettably I have no Italian so while I can definitely say that I smell fringe stuff, I am not in a position to read or make determinations over the sources. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
We have FRINGE pushing here a la Burzynski Clinic. ffs Jytdog ( talk) 02:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.themarysue.com/sinkhole-hellmouth-someone-beep-buffy/ -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This article included assertions of bias sourced from creationists and Conservapedia critiquing our content on evolution, and commentary by Brian Martin (social scientist) supportive of antivaxer Judy Wilyman. Needless to say I do not think either of those constitutes a valid scholarly critique of Wikipedia's accuracy. More eyes would be appreciated. It is my firm view that critiques of our "bias" by WP:FRINGE advocates has no place there, or at least that we would require reliable independent neutral sources that contextualise it. Guy ( Help!) 17:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
An edit war on the page in question has not technically occurred, but users have been brought to the cusp of it. A concerned but somewhat conflict adverse friend of mine feels strongly and asked that I would say something to a relevant party. He feels that the theory that Percy wrote Frankenstein is not being appropriately labeled as a fringe theory and says that when he attempted to resolve this, another editor reverted him.
(I can guess my friend's wikipedia user name from the edit history but as he didn't specifically tell me I will refrain from adding 2+2)
In my opinion, neither editor is sufficiently using the talk page to discuss their concerns. However, I do think the page is giving undue weight to a fringe speculation so I am hoping someone would be willing to look at the article with fresh and disinterested eyes.
IMHO, the page is too biased in one direction and too much of it reads as a persuasive essay rather than an objective literature review of the topic.
Having new sets of eyes review the page and the situation would be most helpful.
Thank you.
Wickedjacob ( talk) 09:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems to have attracted at least two editors very upset about the article. One even calling for editor(s) to be banned. See a couple of threads on the talk page and the recent rewrite. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
See these edits, my comments at the editor's talk page, and a minor point, the translation, the discussion I started on the article talk page. I don't see this 2007 film which seems to have been ignored as a source we should be using. Doug Weller talk 05:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleting sourced material, adding original research and a fringe source. I've reverted but it might be useful if others have it on their watchlist. Note I started this post last night but got logged out, Wikimedia servers got borked, etc. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
https://boingboing.net/2018/05/31/the-time-davy-crockett-met-big.html
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed at least two IP editors, Special:Contributions/90.254.151.253 and Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:BC32:7E00:DD99:F8FC:476B:AF5D, have been adding (mostly) Category:Magic (paranormal) to a lot of articles where this addition may be questionable. In a couple of cases, I have done reversions, as either subcategory of existing category or clearly an inappropriate category to apply. I noticed that another editor, Huntster, rolled a lot of these back on the first-mentioned IP. I'm still leery of category debates because the criteria for applying a categorization still seem a bit unclear to me. Magic itself is not well delineated and sometimes spills over into mythology, folklore, and religion. The impression I'm getting is that these categorizations are being applied as if magic is "real" (as opposed to the scholarly approach the magic (paranormal) article tries to take) and that the editor(s) adding these categories want to claim influence in every conceivable topic. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Li Ching-Yuen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Behold, the strange case of the 250-year old man. The article is filled with extraordinary claims with poor sourcing. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Nice work if you can get it.
https://pagesix.com/2018/06/01/louis-vuitton-hired-a-shaman-to-stop-the-rain-for-fashion-show/
"...while the guru had also been hired to tame the weather at previous shows around the world, skeptical execs at parent company LVMH had recently axed the jet-setting holy man from the budget. But when a downpour unfashionably soaked an outdoor Dior show last week in Chantilly, France, the shaman was back on the payroll..."
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Ganzfeld experiment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Telepathy has been scientifically proven, according to [62]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
As it involves the meeting of deep fringe topics like cryptozoology and Young Earth creationism, members of this board may be interested in the RfC happening at Talk:Living_dinosaur#RfC_on_changing_"Living_dinosaur"_from_a_standard_article_to_a_disambiguation_list_page. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Although the article could use some cleaning up and reworking the material, it is notable enough to warrant it's existence.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 20:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, there are some independent sources that can be added to this. The main reason that Fringe Theory guidelines are there, so that we have balanced coverage and not someone stating one side of theory. Criticism on theories can be added if they are from legitimate sources. That doesn't stop people from attempting to place their own opinions on articles pertaining to anything, including pseudosciences. I have been and always will be a HUGE advocate for balanced and neutral coverage of ALL subjects, the article in question may have a non-neutral standpoint which will need to be fixed and balanced accordingly, but deleting the article seems a bit extreme a measure to take when all it needs is to be rewritten and given more independent sources so that it's in a proper neutral standpoint.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Removing everything and making it a disambig page is basically like deleting the article. You're just removing all information and adding links to "other uses".-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 21:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(sighs) I somehow knew that you would chime in BOF... Thanks for the "positive" input...-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 01:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
References
See [63]. It's based on a UNESCO book, and such books are inevitably political. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
currently foaming at Jonathan Sarfati and edit warring at Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
See
Talk:Jonathan Sarfati#Motion To Strike where the editor insists that ' Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education called Sarfati's Refuting Evolution a "crude piece of propaganda". must be removed from the article. They did, I reverted, they reverted me.
Doug Weller
talk 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)