This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I've been quiet about this issue for far too long, which I realize now was a mistake. I just wanted to make everything perfectly clear in terms of User BloodofFox and his edits to all articles and categories pertaining to WikiProject Cryptozoology. I have recently been made aware of BloodofFox's edits to the article on the Cryptid whale and his removal of information without properly discussing it beforehand. A brief overview on the history of the article and the user's edits to it is this: Several times now, BloodofFox has either deleted the article with no discussion or attempted to get it deleted through legitimate means but failed to do so. When that failed he posted here complaining and lying to everyone stating that there was no consensus for its restoration even though he was a part of the consensus (he was against it) that determined that the article be restored. Now he is removing massive amounts of information that is legitimately sourced, under the claims that they don't mention cryptid whale in it, a similar tactic he has used for removing categories and reworking articles pertaining to Cryptozoology for the sole reason that they never mention the word "Cryptid" in the article. Cryptozoology is the study of "mystery" animals that have so far haven't been proven to exist by science. Any purported animals that are not only rooted in culture but also through claimed sightings and have not yet been proven to exist by science fits into the categorization of "Cryptid". Articles such as the Pope Lick Monster and the Melon Heads, which so far as I can tell, are only rooted in folklore due to a complete lack of purported sightings. These are acceptable reasons for removal from the WikiProject and its categories. However, Mass removal of sourced information from a controversial subject should be discussed first BEFORE they are removed which has never happened with the edits by BloodofFox. This might sound like ranting, and it might be, but I have ALWAYS tried to reach compromises and when I see edits and removal of legitimately sourced material, WikiProjects and Categories that have never been discussed with anyone, then that is an issue. Every time me or someone else adds these back in so that they can be properly discussed BEFORE they are removed, BloodofFox has reverted such edits under false claims of UNDUE and FRINGE whichout ever specifying a legitimate reason for removal and reversion of attempts to restore the material. Looking at both of BloodofFox's claims, it never clearly specifies the treatment of those articles the way the user has been doing. It only states that more caution be taken with such articles so that they are well balanced and do not contain bias of information if the source is legitimate and verified. True, some articles that were under the Cryptozoology banner were in some way "info bias" and not completely neutral. This would constitute more balanced coverage with theories from skeptics within the scientific community added if they come from legitimate sources. Rewriting an article so that it says "legendary [animal] from folklore" instead of purported [animal] found in folklore/ a part of folklore seems more appropriate. If there are no purported sightings that are backed up by legitimate sources then they should only be a part of the folklore category. If there are, then there is no reason why it cannot be a part of BOTH WikiProjects and categories if they are found in both folklore and through purported/legitimate sightings. I would love to hear from BloodofFox on what his opinion on what should be a part of the Cryptozoology WikiProject and why.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 20:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
(sighs)... Apparently sarcasm is considered a "personal attack". So much hate and opinion for one topic and I don't understand it... Oh, well. What can you do.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Already have... I tend not to edit those sort of things but lately I've noticed the edits to those kind of article which felt like vandalism. A sentiment that was confirmed by DarkKnight. But I will take your suggestion. Far too frustrating at the moment. Thanks...-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 23:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Not to get drawn into the cryptid morass, but a brief look at the article shows a link to a PDF of Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology which certainly looks like a whale-sized copyvio (and is our text copy-pasted out of this?). Someone is apparently being very naughty. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"Hypothetical whales". With that kind of title, it would probably also cover a number of Category:Controversial taxa. Taxa suggested by actual biologists or paleontologists, but with insufficient data for wide acceptance. Or Category:Undescribed species, where a species is known to exist, but never received a formal species description and is poorly understood. Dimadick ( talk) 16:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE policy is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, given certain language used in the section on so-called pseudoscience. I will make my case for this below.
According to WP:NPOV, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Furthermore, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
Next, let us examine language used at
WP:FRINGE:
"Pseudoscience: Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification."
"obviously bogus" is both a subjective phrase and, if I may say so, rather un-encyclopedic. What constitutes "obviously bogus" is going to be significantly different from editor to editor, based on people's worldview and various prejudices. And consensus is not relevant here either, since WP:NPOV specifies that the policy cannot be superseded by editor consensus!
It is inherently non-neutral to label a position in a debate as "pseudoscience", it amounts to taking sides.
"Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
What 'scientific community'? Truth is not decided by majority vote or consensus; there are communities of scientists all over the world, and all over the world you have groups of scientists who disagree with other groups. Deciding that your favored group is right, while other groups are wrong, and thus are 'pseudoscientific', is a clear violation of WP:NPOV's command to not take sides and present the sides without editorial bias. The facts may be presented. The proportional acceptance versus rejection of an idea can be stated; for example, it would be neutral and non-biased to say, "the majority of scientists reject the validity of astrology", since that statement is objectively verifiable. To say astrology is "pseudoscience", though, crosses the line into editorial bias because it labels it as "false science". This same thing applies to creation science and other so-called fringe groups as well. This 'pseudoscience' policy is a clear-cut case of "tyranny of the majority" in action.
"Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."
Lots more biased, subjective language here! For example, it is demonstrably false and defamatory (therefore libelous) to claim that biblical creationists lack a critical discourse. Not only do they engage in peer review and publish in scientific journals, but they also meet at conferences such as the International Conference on Creationism (ICC) to discuss and debate various aspects of creation science. You are free to disagree with creation science as an individual, but as an editor, it is your job to not take sides. This is not negotiable! WP:FRINGE violates this maxim, so it needs to be tossed.
"weak evidence" -- yes, another subjective evaluation which should be left to the debaters themselves, not WP editors
"suspect theoretical premise" -- suspect according to whom? Let the debaters decide and leave your opinion out of WP articles.
For any who read this-- thank you for your time. I hope you will consider my points in a level-headed fashion, even if you may be offended by what I am pointing out.
Thanks, -- Kanbei85 ( talk) 16:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In point of fact, our fringe guidance is an elaboration of (at least) WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL, which are intrinsic to WP:NPOV. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Probably of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gish gallop. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
And the AfD is now closed as speedy keep. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Should the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (FPIN) be branded as pseudoscience? This award was the first annual award given for nanotechnology. Many awardees have gone on to win other newer nanotechnology prizes after winning this award. One of the notable awardees is J. Fraser Stoddart, who won the FPIN in 2007 "[for having] pioneered the synthesis and assembly of unique active molecular machines for manufacturing into practical nanoscale devices". [3] In 2013, he was the co-chair the Foresight Institute Conference. He won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2016 "for the design and synthesis of molecular machines". [4] FPIN tries to be a leading indicator while Nobel is a trailing indicator. Most of the critisim seems directed at the awarding institution, the Foresight Institute, which also was recently branded as pseudoscience. Wouldn’t awardees not list this prize in their bio if they thought it was pseudoscience? StrayBolt ( talk) 09:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent removal of POV and Fringe tags from the article. While undoubtedly done in good faith, I think even a causal glance at the article shows that the issues discussed both here and on the article's talk page remain largely unresolved. The article is mostly one sided with little, bordering on no serious rebuttal to the conspiracy theories offered. Extra eye would be appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
SPA at Jakob Lorber ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adding either original research or copyvio. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
A giant (purported) Peruvian bat. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
A discussion that started on talk:homeopathy has spread to a one-against-many dispute at placebo, an article I incidentally find to be rather bloated with references to woo-mongers bigging up the magic of placebo. Guy ( Help!) 22:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Undergoing a lot of editing. Mostly ok I think. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I've removed new content from the article [8]:
New content on phones: cancer risks arise from mobile phone radiation, which is increasingly supported by modern science and groups of scientists
Old version: cancer risks arise from mobile phone radiation, which is pseudoscientific
I only glanced at the article Mobile phone radiation and health, but the new content seems to be fringe. The old version seems awkward at best.
New addition on fluoride: fluoride and fluoridation is harming overall health. Mercola is supportive of the lawsuit brought by six non-profits against the EPA for failure to enforce their Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) regulations based specifically on evidence of the neurotoxic effects of fluoride on the developing central nervous system.
I think his views on fluoride may deserve mention, but this addition looks to be skirting FRINGE to use the article as a soapbox for fringe viewpoints.-- Ronz ( talk) 16:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This article said "He is a board examiner of the American Board of Anti-Aging Medicine (ABAAM)" without noting that this is not a recognized board, and "[h]is practice focuses on alternative therapies that are not yet standard practice with mainstream doctors,[2] maintaining that mainstream medicine tends to be an average of 17 years behind the emergence of new and advanced treatments".
I fixed those egregious issues, but there's a lot more to do here. Guy ( Help!) 12:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
USS Nimitz UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Radar visual reporting of a UFO during a 2004 Navy training mission, much hyped in mainstream media in 2107 2017. Some recent
lobbying on the Talk page seeking to diminish/invalidate criticism by skeptics, particularly
Joe Nickell, and boost/validate the narrative of proponents, namely "To The Stars Academy", a fringe advocacy group seeking funding for UFO research. This group played a significant role in fueling sensational media reporting last year, and is currently promoting a purported "classified report" about the incident. Some obvious
WP:SYNTH now being edit-warred to the article
[10],
[11] in an effort to rebut critique by Nickell of To The Stars Academy's fringe narrative. A few more eyes appreciated. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 03:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Radar visual reporting of a UFO during a 2004 Navy training mission, much hyped in mainstream media in 2107.Well, we've got 87 years before those sources get published, so I would remove them all from the article for now. Yes, this comment is a joke. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I'm putting together a rewrite of the infamous Mokele-mbembe, but I'm having some trouble making sense of the sources. For those of you haven't been involved in the recent pseudoscience cleanup efforts in these areas (articles around the living dinosaur- Young Earth creationism- cryptozoology pseudoscience circle, that is), this article may be perplexing and the topic requires a little background.
Essentially, the article is written like so many others related to it on Wikipedia: mostly in direct violation of WP:PROFRINGE. Individuals who fall out of line with the fringe view, like academics, are described as a "skeptic" and ushered into the back. Heavy emphasis is placed on "sightings", etc. Where this one differs from the usually quackery is that reliable sources on this topic in fact do exist (thus meeting WP:FRIND), but they tell a very different story than the current article does. It turns out that a lot of the material produced on this topic results from Young Earth creationist-cryptozoologist overlap, as paleontologist Donald Prothero's work on this topic illustrates (see his The Story of Life in 25 Fossils: Tales of Intrepid Fossil Hunters and the Wonders of Evolution, pp.232-234, Columbia University Press and also Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids, pp. 115-116, 262-265, Columbia University Press with Loxton).
In short, creationist groups have been funding cryptozoologist trips to Africa to find this purported dinosaur (or, if you're a cryptozoologist, a "cryptid") for quite some time now (reaching back as far as the 1980s, even). Their goal? To 'prove evolution wrong'. Typically, while well known, you won't find this less than savory fact mentioned by notable adherents of the pseudoscience themselves (but you might find a citation or two to genesispark.com from cryptozoologists, like in George M. Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology(!)). It all makes for a case book example of why WP:FRIND is so important in these corners.
This idea of Mokele-mbembe comes from somewhere, yet the ultimate source of these concepts seems pretty blurry. A lot of writers mention it comes from some kind of folk belief, but that may not actually be the case. For example, editors who have researched the history of the concept of the yeti knows that this can be a complex topic, perhaps even resulting from some kind of misunderstanding in translation, and then taking on a life of its own. Anyway, does anyone know of any solid sources on the origin of the Mokele-mbembe concept? Any specialist linguists, anthropologists, or folklorists who can shine some light on how all this developed as a vehicle for the we-gotta-find-a-dinosaur-to-prove-evolution-is-wrong crowd?
(Also posted at WP:RSN a few days ago, but also posting here since it's quite relevant to this noticeboard.) :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Currently our article cryptid whale relies heavily on pseudoscience sources. Specifically, the article is based on cryptozoologist George M. Eberhart's apologetic, pro-cryptozoology tome Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology (as @ Alexbrn: points out above, the article quite brazenly also includes link to a PDF of the work, a straightforward copyright violation). In short, cryptozoologists have a long fascination with beach blobs (which they may call " globsters"). They have a tendency to identify animal carcasses that wash up on shores as sea serpents (or living dinosaurs).
To prop up the pseudoscience and general crackpottery, several sources from actual scientists who make no mention of the word cryptozoology nor the pseudoscientific concept of a "cryptid" are included alongside Eberhart's book. Considering how hostile scientists and other academics appear to have become toward the pseudoscience (cryptozoology has, for example, increasingly becomes a vessel for Young Earth creationism), I doubt these scientists appreciate this invented association. No secondary sources are provided to contextualize cryptozoologist claims (not surprising, as this tends to make cryptozooologists look, uh, less than respectable). This is classic WP:PROFRINGE stirred with a strong dose of WP:SYNTH to make it appear palatable.
While I can't guess the primary author's intent, behavior like this in is in fact common among cryptozoologists, as scholars who have studied cryptozoologists note. This would all be pretty straightforward to fix (root out anything that doesn't mention the concept of a "cryptid whale", bring in academic sources discussing cryptozoologist tendency to identify beach blubs as 'potential sea monsters'), but editing the article has attracted not only the ire of the article's primary author, but also cryptozoologists, all of who appear to be ready to edit-war to keep the article as-is. The article needs more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of the statements attribured to Eberhart have some logical problems as well, regardless of what one thinks of cryptozoology.
"Given the species' alleged size and attributes, it is extremely doubtful such a species would not have been taken (and reported) by modern commercial whalers, bringing into doubt its very existence."
In response to a single sighting in 1867. Eberhart does not seem to address the possibility that the proposed species has since went extinct. And there has been a moratorium on commercial whaling since 1982, with few countries (Iceland, Japan, and Norway) still maintaining fleets of whalers. Large sections of the world ocean no longer have any whaling activities to serve as Eberhart's source of potential data. See also the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and the attempts to ban all types of commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean, to the south of Chile's Tierra del Fuego. (The sighting which Eberhart describes supposedly occured in Chile's territorial waters.) Dimadick ( talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It is slightly starting to annoy me that BOF is constantly "name calling" and attempt to delegitimize any editor that disagrees with him. Doesn't seem that professional to me. Even though Cryptozoology is a Pseudoscience, it's WikiProject was only trying to add and improve articles relating to it and not "Legitimizing it" as you claim. I am not at all stating that Cryptids exist, many of them do not, but the purported SIGHTINGS of mystery animals should be included into the WikiProject and not removed from it just because it doesn't mention the word cryptid. Cryptozoology itself is defined as "the study of hidden animals and of still unknown animal forms that have yet to be proved by science. This was later expanded to include any "out-of-place animals, and feral animals". The full definition can be found Here-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully that link was helpful... It's hard finding a detailed definition from someone that isn't a part of the pseudoscience. :( -- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop name calling BloodofFox.... Dunky does have a point though... Wikipiedia is and ENCYCLOPIEDIA not an opinions board. We just report information, not use it as a place to rant and rave about how you don't agree with one subject. If there is information that is reliable than it SHOULD be added, regardless of ones opinions/leanings. You have been very disruptive and rude to quite a few users including myself, resorting to name calling when you don'e agree with them. Please just let it go BloodofFox... For the sake of ALL of our mental health.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff?-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 02:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Although the title of the page is a bit weird, mysterious whales are not just the province of cryptozoology but are part of zoology, Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni did not identify as cryptozoologists and Bob Pitman has talked about unknown Mesoplodon species in the 1990s (Pitman, R. L., A. Aguayol and J. Urbán r 1987. Observations of an unidentified beaked whale (Mesoplodon sp.) in the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 3: 345–352. subsequently described and allocated see Pitman, R. L. and Lynn, M. S. (2001), BIOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS OF AN UNIDENTIFIED MESOPLODONT WHALE IN THE EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC AND PROBABLE IDENTITY MESOPLODON PERUVIANUS. Marine Mammal Science, 17: 648-657. doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01010.x). The problem here is the title of the page (replace "cryptid" with "mystery"?). If you are going to claim Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni are cryptozoologists presumably because of their insidious apparently pseudoscientific observations(fancy suggesting in the 19th century that there were unknown species of whale, what a bunch of crazies!) you have to also include Bob Pitman one of the foremost marine mammalogists in the world as one too. See the problem with labelling all of cryptozoology, pseudoscience? It is hardly consistent to say if cryptozoologists speculate about unknown species of whale, it is pseudoscience, but if zoologists do it is science. P'raps it is time to stop the anti-cryptozoology witchhunt and have more nuanced articles? Tullimonstrum ( talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I prefer another term for pseudoscientific endeavors: 'sham inquiry.' Cryptozoology typically qualifies."And Abominable Science says
"If its adherent want cryptozoology to be taken seriously as a true science, rather than as a pseudoscience or "sham inquiry," they must have to begin to play by the rules of real science."Some scientists may very occasionally describe what they're doing as cryptozoology, and some "cryptozoologists" may occasionally do actual science, but the overwhelming evidence appears to be that cryptozoology as a whole is described by relevant experts as a pseudoscience (or a euphemism for pseudoscience). And yes, the existing lead isn't entirely accurate, but that's at least partially a product of the article title and the cryptozoology books being used as references. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Why doesn't someone either put this article up as an AFD discussion or improve it? All I read is endless complaint on both sides and deletions with reverts. I thought we were supposed to work on consensus here. The article as it stand is pure speculative fringe. I think it could stand some more sourcing but seriously, there is not actually any reputable scientific sourcing about this. At best it is folklore. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 14:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll begin by addressing
LuckyLouie's issue that "Cryptozooligist Eberhart is used as the main source for the assertion that cryptozoolgists believe cryptid whales exist
". However, Eberhart's book that lists "
Giglioli's Whale" (which Eberhart calls "The Magenta Whale") does not substantiate that Eberhart believes in its existence. I hope you realize this.
The original paragraph did not say Cryptid whales were cetaceans "claimed to exist by cryptozoologist". Before this edit it just said "sea creatures claimed to exist", so in plain reading the reader would see this as claims being made by earlier naturalists such as Giglioli and Sibbald. Not cryptozoologists.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 18:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean, this is one of the linchpins of the argument of this being pseudoscience: the pretense that every cryptid that Ebert et al. talks about, they are claiming they have proven the existence of. If it were true, I agree that would be enough to call them fringe, without further elaborating. But it is a lie.
Therefore you need to illustrate by actual specific examples of what pieces of pseudoscience are being used, portrayed as definitive scientific proof. I am not seeing any of this here or in the Cryptozoology article.
Another pillar of Bloodofox's claim is the constant association he tries to create with Young earth creationism as if these notable cryptozoologists are steeped deep in its belief. He mentions it 6 times in this thread, clearly overkill, an additional 2 times elsewhere on this noticeboard, in Talk:Cryptid whale as well.
A third is his notion that an "avalanche of academic sources flatly referring to it as a pseudoscience
". If that were true he should not have to refer to this Jeb J. Card figure, who seems to be a relative non-entity, four times in this thread. He should be able to quote from a variety of figures of higher esteem and standing, here or in
Cryptozoology. It is a grossly inflated claim.--
Kiyoweap (
talk) 03:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry that it has to be me again who points out that this is a noticeboard. Noticeboards are for posting short notices, and maybe a few comments to the short notices.
Should this discussion not be on, I don't know, Talk:Cryptid whale? Or Talk:Cryptozoology? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The main author of this article is user:Mazkyri, an obvious name match for the subject. As usual with any content related to life extension, the article heaps fulsome praise on the subject but with a dearth of sources outside the walled garden of anti-ageing quackery. Guy ( Help!) 12:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I just cut out a bunch of "this traces back to ancient Greece" twaddle. I would appreciate someone looking over my (un-)work. Mangoe ( talk) 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Potentially of interest to the community: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Thought and Ethics. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Enjoy! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And the silly tabloid makes a major error in the first paragraph of the text "The Rapture is an event many Christians believe marks the return of the son of God – and all the believers will disappear from Earth up to Heaven in the "twinkling of an eye". "
The Rapture as a concept is held by only a minority of Christians, and the popularization of the idea is largely credited to John Nelson Darby (1800–1882).
Back in the 2000s, comic book writer Chuck Austen wrote an X-Men storyline concerning the Rapture, and attributed the concept to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. The story was largely ridiculed in Internet comic-book websites, because Austen had a very poor understanding of the Rapture, that most people supporting the concept are Protestants, and that Catholic teachings on "prophetic" books have nothing to do with Dispensationalism. See here for more conversation on the topic: https://comicdomwrecks.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/top-5-chuck-austen-x-men-moments/ Dimadick ( talk) 21:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: - the solstice was at June 21, 2018, at 10:07 UTC so you posted it too late for the Future Predictions so now it has to go in the very long section of Past Predictions. Has the next "End of the World" prediction popped up in the "Daily Whatever" or do they limit them to once a week?
This short discussion is far more noticeboard-y than all those long pages above where you, Paleface, and others try to argue for your own standpoints on the subject of whether cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. The news it points to could conceivably lead to WP edits by people who want to include the news in some article, and a few snarky but informative comments are tradition on this page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
a few snarky but informative comments are tradition on this pageTo be fair, people getting all bent out of shape and upset over said snarky comments is just as much of a tradition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Mušḫuššu is an entity from the Babylonian record. It turns out that over the years the being has become a topic of interest to Young Earth creationists, cryptozoologists, and other related pseudoscience adherents. As the article has recently seen a cleanup by myself and others, it could use more eyes, especially until it gets a solid rewrite. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a minor edit war at this article that might fall under this noticeboard's purview. I have no clue about the subject in question but maybe some editors with more knowledge could keep an eye on it. Regards So Why 12:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
200+ years ago, "sovereign" people was a common term and is still in current law. Now some people consider it a "fringe" idea and a theory, not reality. So does time change a topic from normal to "fringe"? I say 'no". Rgojoey ( talk) 21:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
2600:1010:b149:71e0:463:2c:4c65:6dbf ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) "exposing corruption in Wikipedia" by adding unsourced fringe theories to Fluoride [17] [18] Tera TIX 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not just that. I've compiled a list of the stuff he/she believes. He/she believes that fluoride cannot be found naturally in water, Wikipedia editors are trying to deceive and brainwash people, fluoride is put in water to poison and control people, plants do not absorb fluoride, fluoride does not prevent tooth decay, dentists are in on the conspiracy, coconut oil is perfect for keeping your gums healthy, teeth heal themselves, our entire skeletons completely heal themselves every ten years, the only studies done on fluoride for the teeth were by an aluminum company, selling fluoride is a form of genocide, Nazis used fluoride in concentration camps, the use of fluoride in water is illegal, fluoride is used to harm the pineal gland (which is apparently your third eye) to stop you from accessing limitless hidden senses, films are trustworthy sources, alternative medicine isn't pseudoscience, the MMR vaccine causes autism, Wakefield worked on the MMR vaccine, vaccine are poisonous, vaccines are not mainstream, the levels of sometimes toxic things in vaccines are dangerous, stories on an anti-vaxxer website are trustworthy and are evidence against vaccines, and there is a giant conspiracy by the government, pharmacies, and places that offer free flu shots. Wyrm127 ( talk) 05:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Wyrm172 I don't appreciate your attitude of snark and the op was correct about SOME things. Films can be a good source of information, a lot of alternative medicine isn't pseudoscience even by wikipedias insane definition as it is WIDELY practiced and taught in many respectable colleges in the east. Vaccines can cause Autism, and some stories are true. This attitude is exactly what is wrong with wikipedia and why new editors numbers have been dropping off for the last ten years
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/713292/jesus-christ-cannabis-oil-miracle-weed-bible -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:52, 3 July 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.
In case anyone wants to discover their past lives. Humor — Paleo Neonate – 04:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
HA! My mom loves this crap. She owns most of the books Weiss has written. I've actually read Many Lives, Many Masters and can say with certainty that it's a load of hogwash anecdotes about his "patients" dreaming and talking to him while they were half-conscious - much like I do before going to sleep, except he writes it down and tries to convince them it was all real. Probably charges a ton for it, too. Kinda makes me sick to think that my mom and so many others truly believe the dude. Nanophosis ( talk) 21:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not a chat site. If this is not a discussion of making changes to an article then it's going to have to stop.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently the lede of
chaos magic says "Often referred to as 'success magic' or 'results-based magic', chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of objective results over the symbolic, ritualistic, theological or otherwise ornamental aspects of other occult traditions."
Then there's a section that says "Chaos magic grew out of the desire to strip away all of these extraneous elements, leaving behind only the techniques for effecting change; hence the emphasis is on actually doing things – i.e., experimenting with different techniques, rather than memorising complex rules, symbols and correspondences – and then retaining those techniques that produce results"
To me, this looks like the definition of a fringe theory. And then we have spinoff pages like
Servitor (chaos magic), where we are making statements in Wikipedia's voice like "When a complex of thoughts, desires and intentions gains such a level of sophistication that it appears to operate autonomously from the magician's consciousness, as if it were an independent being, then such a complex is referred to as a servitor."
Is this a topic that can make claims about the state of the world and use labels like "results based", but somehow not be subject to fringe guidelines? --
tronvillain (
talk) 13:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
"Other magical traditions like Wicca, Qabalah or the Golden Dawn system combine techniques for bringing about change with 'beliefs, attitudes, a conceptual model of the universe (if not several), a moral ethic, and a few other things besides.' Chaos magic grew out of the desire to strip away all of these extraneous elements, leaving behind only the techniques for effecting change; hence the emphasis is on actually doing things – i.e., experimenting with different techniques, rather than memorising complex rules, symbols and correspondences – and then retaining those techniques that produce results."any better? It's still claiming to produce actual results. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps this can be resolved by judicious editing... for example: instead of saying: “... chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of objective results...” we could say “... chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of (what are perceived as being) objective results...” or something similar. I think the goal is for the reader to understand that any “results” don’t have to BE real... the important thing is that the results are BELIEVED to be real by practitioners. Blueboar ( talk) 16:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
"Often referred to as 'success magic' or 'results-based magic', chaos magic claims to emphasize the attainment of objective results over the symbolic, ritualistic, theological or otherwise ornamental aspects of other occult traditions."I suppose I could just ask for clarification of exactly what that is supposed to mean over there. Maybe "success magic" and "results-based magic" isn't claiming to produce real world results. -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this article, I'm seeing a lot of red flags. This includes the intro that you're highlighting. For one, the article's sourcing is very poor (the article almost entirely relies on works by adherents or pop culture stuff from non-academcs) and much of the article appears to be written from a more or less emic perspective. Chaos magic is indeed fringe stuff, and I wonder what scholars have to say about the topic. Have you checked around for peer-reviewed items? :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
"Of course in a probability based universe such as this, some things remain more possible than others. Fortunately we can precisely calculate how much probability distortion a given act of magic will produce using the following equations of magic: [equations here]."-- tronvillain ( talk) 18:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys. Full disclosure: I've substantially rewritten and expanded the chaos magic page over the past month or so, so I am biased here. But here's my two cents: chaos magic is based around the belief that there is no such thing as objective truth. So I don't see how it's possible for this to be classified as pseudoscience, which consists of truth statements that are not supported by science. The entire thing is based around the idea that none of it is objectively real. Yes, Peter J. Carroll uses scientific-looking equations and so on. But he also uses rituals that invoke the fictional characters of HP Lovecraft -- and does both of these things under the explanation that "belief is a tool for achieving effects". [1] To take those things out of context perhaps makes them seem like pseudoscience. But within the framework of chaos magic, it's clear they are a form of game being played with different symbol systems. As chaos magic states, Carroll also advises assigning beliefs like "atheism" and "fundamentalist christianity" to the sides of a die, then randomly adopting them for a set period of time to see how it affects your psychology. Everything is done under the banner of "none of this is real/objectively true, we're just pretending that it's true temporarily, because that's what all occultism is anyway." So I don't see how it can be classed as pseudoscience. Rune370 ( talk) 21:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
As someone who is completely unfamiliar with this subject matter, Chaos Magic sounds like an abstract version of Wicca#Eclectic_Wicca. FWIW, Wicca is not under the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, rather WikiProject Religion/New religious movements. Within the lede is the following citation: Clarke, Peter Bernard (2006). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Psychology Press. pp. 105ff. ISBN 978-0-415-26707-6. This source identifies Chaos Magic as the same category, that it is a new religious movement? If so, I believe your perspective holds merit. The editor of the work was affiliated with Oxford and King's College. Kintpuash ( talk) 04:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
As I said I am not sure this is a Fringe issue, but then to what degree are modern magical "traditions" religions as opposed to systems of believe or philosophical concepts. In the case of Chaos magic the claim that it is "results based" (and thus (in a sense) empirically based) as well as its reliance of maths (although many other magical traditions (I.E. ones more then 100 years old) often relied on mathematical equations and even astronomical observations) does shift in into the realms of Pseudoscience. I think however we may need an RFC on this to attract the attention of the religion taskforcers. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
they apply to fields of study, in which there's an identifiable mainstream view- such as philosophy, physics, mathematics and everything derived from those fields? This is not Plato's Cave, it's screaming "Nothing is real, so let's fuck everything up, since it's not real anyway". Seems fringy, at the very least. Stuff exists, stuff is real, that's an identifiable mainstream view.
What is the mainstream view that we're supposed to be giving appropriate weight to?...
What are we supposed to be giving more weight to?- we need less in-world prose and more academic research on this social phenomena. Since you care about this article, perhaps you could point us in the right direction and find a few sources? byteflush Talk 00:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, this is taking up enough of my life. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that the consensus here is that I am wrong, and that the main issue with the chaos magic page is not the POV, not the quality of the sources, but that it presents a fringe theory, and that the solution is therefore to give proper weight to the corresponding mainstream theory.
I am at a total loss as to what the relevant mainstream theory is. So please, can I get some help on this? Can people just pile on, over the next two or three days, and identify the relevant mainstream theory for each section of the article? Then I can rewrite it, giving proper balance to the mainstream view, and we can get the tag removed.
But please, please, please, do not say something along the lines of "well, really the issue here is that we need academic sources", or "the wording needs to be more neutral", because that is a tacit admission that "fringe theory" is the wrong tag, identifying the wrong problem.
So, here are the sections:
What mainstream theory am I supposed to give more weight to in each bit?
JzG, Tronvillain, Blueboar, Byteflush -- can I get your help on this? You've all been relatively vocal that this is a fringe theory. At the moment it feels like I'm trying to have a debate, and I'm just shouting into the wind. Can you help me identify the solution to the problem you've identified, please? Rune370 ( talk) 12:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
References
And some OR. User:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau is adding, under a sentence on Freud. "That is a typical "fringe theory". However, Champolion and Fabre d'églantine also adopted that fringe theory with more guesses than arguments. However, in their best-seller book Secrets of the Exodus, the two French egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah based on various intercultural comparisons to affirm, like the three preceding persons, that the Hebrews originated in the faithful of Akhenaten. [1] Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator in the Egyptian department of the Louvre, also underlined several similarities between Egyptian culture and the Bible. [2]"
and deleting
Additionally, the historical Pithom was built in the 7th century BC, during the Saite period. [3] [4]
which also made a bit of a formatting mess. [19] He was reverted by User:A. Parrot and by me twice today. He's been blocked for editwarring in the past.
This seems to be a combination of original research and fringe. I haven't been able to find out the credentials of the Sabbah brothers (Amazon just says " brothers and the descendants of a long line of rabbis and chief rabbis" but did find a translation of a review in Figaro. [20] - Jean-Marie Tasset seems to write mainly on art. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about this deletion: "Additionally, the historical Pithom was built in the 7th century BC, during the Saite period.[3][4]" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (
talk •
contribs) 17:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Tasset is the author of several books, see his bibliography. Dimadick ( talk) 17:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Tasset is a journalist who made a summary of Secrets of the Exodus. The issue is that that book makes, as Tasset explains, a great many comparisons between both cultures: Judaic and Egyptian. Since the whole demonstration of the Sabbahs is that both cultures are exactly the same, then, the great quantity of similar comparisons added by the famous Egyptologist Desroches-Noblecourt cannot be ignored.
Doug Weller talk 04:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Recent POV edits that may require some attention. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 14:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This is only borderline as to our interests, but the upshot is the claim that the astronauts of the Skylab 4 mission basically took a whole day off. Actual transcripts of transmission show it didn't happen, but since they are Official (and, well, as primary as sources can get) we have one hardhead who insists that we have to say it happened. Discussion both on the talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Skylab_mutiny. Mangoe ( talk) 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I have a COI regarding the above. My Ankles no longer exist, and have become Cankles (Cankles = merged Calves and ankles) and the article seems to hint that the featherlight touches practitioners employ actually does some good. Eyes? - Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, Wikimedia Foundation staff have been working with YouTube to learn more about the feature (called information panels) developed by their team which will link to Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica articles from videos about conspiracy theories on YouTube. This announcement was first made in March of this year, and the feature will be rolled out starting this week. (This was previously discussed onwiki here, here, and here, amongst other places). We wanted to let folks know about the rollout and share more information about articles that may be impacted by the new feature. We have been supplied with a list of the initial English Wikipedia articles that they are going to be linking to. Those articles are: Global warming, Dulce Base, Lilla Saltsjöbadsavtalet, 1980 Camarate air crash, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Kecksburg UFO incident, and MMR vaccine.
The Foundation staff who are in contact with YouTube about the feature spoke with a handful of admins leading up to the rollout. From those conversations, we do not anticipate this will create a substantial increase in vandalism on English Wikipedia, but we will be monitoring this with the YouTube team. If you have any questions, concerns, or notice an increase in negative behavior on those articles, please let me or GVarnum-WMF know.
You can find an overview of the announcement from YouTube in this section of their latest blog post. We will update you here if we have more new information. Cheers, Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I completed some cleanup of the Kecksburg incident: [22] jps ( talk) 15:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
After Gwen and Goop, are we about to have another one go to the darkside? - Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I take umbrage to saying biblical creationism is fringe as it has a large following LordFluffington454 ( talk) 12:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
(moved from Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories as it was misplaced). — Paleo Neonate – 12:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes I realize by your "policies" you are correct however I suggest the policy is incorrect because it ignores the fact that hundreds of millions of people believe in it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Edward Bach ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was Edward Bach a bacteriologist? The only indications I could find that this was so were some websites that claimed because he was an advocate for the germ theory of disease, he was a bacteriologist. I can't find any evidence that he actually did any baceteriology research, but I may have missed something.
jps ( talk) 14:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
"He was for a time demonstrator of bacteriology at University College Hospital and casuality medical officer, and at the London Temperance Hospital he was casualty house surgeon. He later became bacteriologist to the London Homeopathic Hospital."[2] -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
References
There is a minor content dispute about the criticism of this journal. Input is appreciated to improve wording and sourcing. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 18:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
A related article, Myth of the flat Earth in Middle Ages was recently renamed, another editor contests it (I'm not sure if the move was justified). Another relevant article, Flat Earth has a merge tag at the top to a red link. There are likely other related articles. It would be nice to see what's up and find out the proper presentation/splitting, considering the relation to modern fringe flat-earthism. — Paleo Neonate – 17:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Which I suspect may be reinstated. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It seems like the entries on Carlos Castaneda (and the related articles Don Juan Matus, Tensegrity (Castaneda), and Cleargreen) need additional eyes. They have a number of WP:FRINGE and unreliable sourcing problems, and several portions seem to be written by "true believers".
For background: Early reviewers seem to have regarded Castaneda's early books as largely legitimate ethnography, and he received a PhD on the basis of the research he supposedly conducted on Native American Shamanism. However, subsequent work strained credibility and eventually went off the deep-end with full blown claims of shape-shifting and psychic battles with witches. By the time Castaneda died he was running a cult and selling new-age seminars for $600 a person. All of the books are now widely accepted to have been fabricated, and no one believes that this is an accurate depiction of Toltec religious beliefs. See: here, and a longer article from Salon here for more details. Any help is appreciated. Nblund talk 15:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
These are all redirects now to Castaneda article. The only cited information was on Don Juan Matus which I have moved to main article. —DIYeditor ( talk) 03:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
There's an RfC at Talk:University of the People where two editors with a long history of edits promoting the subject, are the only ones commenting. I think this needs more eyes. The government of South Africa has released a statement calling UoP fraudulent, and these editors insist this is original research, synthesis, they ran out of gas! they got a flat tire! They didn’t have change for cab fare! They lost their tux at the cleaners! They locked their keys in the car! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole their car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN’T UoP's FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD! Guy ( Help!) 11:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Meanwhile the Department has been in contact with the authentic University of the People (UoPeople) and has determined that the institution is duly registered and accredited by the relevant US authorities.And this:
However, due to the fact that UoPeople has no legal or physical presence in the form of operation sites in South Africa, the university is still considered unlicensed to operate in this country.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhas Mitra (2nd nomination).
This subject has been discussed from time-to-time in the past on this board.
jps ( talk) 18:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
See [29] Doug Weller talk 19:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Our friend User:TotalFailure was busy recently in this article, and while I'm not terribly familiar with the material, the nature of TF's editing of late and the title of one section that he added give me pause. It would be helpful if someone were to check it out. Mangoe ( talk) 12:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to @ Mangoe: we have the first draft of a possible guideline for prodigies. A notice was posted to WP:BLPN but only gained the response from @ GRuban: and is now archived. Since many of the issues showed up on this noticeboard as well, I thought I'd let y'all know. More input would, of course, be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 15:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Two users are systematically promoting the anti-Normanist fringe theory (two topics at the bottom of the talk page).-- Ymblanter ( talk) 19:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I just removed a bunch of stuff that was, as far as I could tell, original research. Post hoc claims of UFO sightings need to be sourced and explained clearly. This had not been done.
I could have messed up.
Help is appreciated.
jps ( talk) 04:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
List of reported UFO sightings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apologies, I forgot to link. jps ( talk) 16:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Can someone else PLEASE put this page on their watchlists? It's being spammed and it needs a lot more cleanup. [31] jps ( talk) 01:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Super blood moon APOCALYPSE: Bible prophecy predicts End of World just ‘DAYS away’ -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#The_intersection_of_BLPSPS_and_PSCI Jytdog ( talk) 18:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I stumbled on an article at Maxwell's zombie which looks kind of fringey, and possibly not even notable enough to merit an article, but I wasn't too sure. Folks here might be interested. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 20:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently Wikipedia's coverage of Slavic folklore courses with fringe stuff. For example, until recently Slavic folklore redirected to Slavic paganism (I created the former recently). Slavic mythology still directs to Slavic paganism. Of course, myth is a folklore genre that is not restricted to the pagan period, and Slavic mythology is in no way synonymous with Slavic paganism, anyway. Additionally, it happens that Slavic mythology and Slavic paganism are in fact very poorly attested in the historic record, with far less to draw from than, say, the historic Germanic corpus. However, you wouldn't know it from Wikipedia's articles, which attempt to present a synthesized, holistic view of historical Slavic paganism.
It seems to me that a lot of potentially nationalist fringe theories currently run wild in these corners, conflating theory and fact at every corner. Any idea what do about this? Slavic folklore and ancient Slavic studies receives little attention in Western academia, but sources like Puhvel's Comparative Mythology might be good places to start, and if nothing else, these corners need far more eyes. Pinging editors working in related corners: @ Katolophyromai:, @ Iryna Harpy:, @ Alarichall:. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Miracle of the Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Repeated removal of criticism from lead. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Proposed revisions of the BLP of Alan Sabrosky are under discussion at the article's talk page. Sabrosky is a former academic and proponent of 9/11 and antisemitic conspiracy theories. His page was recently kept as no consensus, with the decision coming after a long discussion on the grounds that he once held a named chair at the United States Army War College. It is not clear why he left this enviable job at a relatively young age. The current discussion is about the weight to give his fringe theorizing in a revised version of his page. I think it would be useful if editors with experience in 9/11 conspiracy theories would weigh in. thank you, E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
There's a content dispute on the Dinesh D'Souza talk page [33] over whether we should cite favorable reviews by Rush Limbaugh and a Moonie Times op-ed writer of a D'Souza book which asserts similarities between the Democratic Party and the Nazi party platform of the 1930s. Historians overwhelmingly reject the thesis of the book, [34] [35] yet non-experts such Rush Limbaugh and Moonie Times op-ed writer Michael Taube support the thesis of the book. Per my understanding of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE, we ought not cite non-expert minority opinions on matters that diverge from mainstream scholarship, as it gives readers the false impression that there is an on-going debate about the veracity of the claims. Perhaps you can add some clarification on this. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Everything he says here is accurateand
There is not the slightest, tiny sliver in which this could be even somewhat accurateare statements of fact, not subjective opinions of the reviewers, and should not be placed next to each other as if they carry equal weight. – dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Reviews, as a rule, are only as good as the reviewer, so reviews of specialist non-fiction material in MSM are, as a rule, worthless unless they've called in an expert. There is also a timeliness issue in that reviews of novel claims pretty much fall under WP:NOTNEWS, since they are capturing initial reactions rather than the conclusions of long-thought-out consideration and discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Some forum shopping appears to be going on in relation to this article (pointing at the current dispute at its talk page), so I'm also posting a notification here for balance. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 22:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
UFO Phil ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article loaded down with WP:SENSATIONAL sources resulting in WP:UNDUEly bloated coverage of comically ridiculous fringe claims, thanks to many IP edits over time likely made by the Los Angeles-area actor who portrays this character. Obviously, the gimmick is all about maintaining the illusion that UFO Phil is a real person and not a character/performance, but IMO, it's now crossing the line into misusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. If the character were to be treated as a real person, it would be subject to WP:FRINGEBLP. If the character were to be treated as a character, it would be subject to MOS:FICT. I'd be curious to know what others think. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I have never heard of him, but a 2011 article from the Huffington Post simply describes him as a "comedy songwriter and filmmaker". RationalWiki describes him as "an over-the-top parody of a UFO believer and alien abductee played by actor Rick Still." See here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/UFO_Phil
Wow, this article has grown since I was here last in 2007, when his single aired on The Art Bell Show-- Auric talk 00:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it's time to put this up for deletion. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster#RfC: Should the EmDrive be labeled as Pseudoscience? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Article about a fringe amateur Egyptologist's ideas with no independent sources. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
In the vein of articles about people using aliases.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Goddard.
jps ( talk) 00:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
Recently, two false claims were made against Spencer Proffer on his Wiki page. The false claims are the second (Admits to making false claims) and third (Settles for fraud) section of the page. Please have these sections deleted as there is no factual evidence of either of these claims.
Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.36.97 ( talk) 20:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Lead used to call him a global warming skeptic until an SPA arrived and removed it. I'm wondering if this guy is notable. I did find this Guardian article. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
What standard would you all say makes a denier notable for being a denier? WP:FRINGEBLP would generally argue that as long as there are independent sources on a person, they're notable. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that. jps ( talk) 10:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medawar zone. jps ( talk) 16:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
As a heads up, this Fox "news" item will probably be causing issues in multiple places across the encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 ( talk) 20:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
foxnews.com/science. Clear. jps ( talk) 03:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Leland D. Melvin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-- Auric talk 11:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Since I seem to be the "enemy " here, with the suggestion that I might be misusing my tools, I'd appreciate it if others could deal with this. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The first article has been subject of undisclosed paid edits from a PR agency (already banned), probably from others too. It is full of fringe theories using Ilchi Lee's organizations as the main source. Here is an example I have just removed ( [46]):
Lee's Korean Institute of Brain Science (KIBS), which was granted UN ECOSOC "roster consultative status" and Lee's International Brain Education Association (IBREA) report that Lee's programs not only help children develop better memory and concentration but also certain supernatural abilities (or Extrasensory Perception - ESP) due to "Heightened Sensory Perception," as their studies find that children could identify colors, shapes, and letters while blindfolded. - although this ability was found by KIBS to diminish significantly with less ambient light and greater filtering of the viewed material. While Lee asserts that these findings are based on cognitive neuroscience, mainstream neurologists generally regard such conclusions as strongly lacking in scientific support.
Both articles would benefit from a review. Thanks. -- MarioGom ( talk) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I realized that the article has neutrality (and likely source quality) issues and started a thread at Talk:Prana#Neutrality. I'll try to return to it, but input and help is always welcome. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 10:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Ran into this article after I saw this edit. The lead starts "Moses is a British documentary programme that chronicles the life of Moses using scientific and contemporary historical evidence." Which to my mind is saying that you can actually do that because he's a real historical figure for which there is evidence. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Article written by a Theosophist who has created many other pro-Theosophy articles on Wikipedia. A scan for his username on the archives of this board reveals users discussing his edits in the past on several occasions. From first look the article may look ok and fool users as the article creator is an expert at layout and referencing material, especially Russian sources, but on investigation about 80% of the sources are fringe Theosophy sources. Seems a very unbalanced article to promote Theosophy as having valid scientific ideas. Also bad quote mining of James Jeans in the "Theosophy and physics" section and other dubious material.
Same editor has written many other promotional Theosophy articles like What Are The Theosophists?, Occult or Exact Science? etc 80.225.31.28 ( talk) 01:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This is very bad, it may need administrator intervention. SERGEJ2011 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It looks to me like someone is using Wikipedia as a soapbox by writing cliffnotes. jps ( talk) 03:33, 18 August 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. |
I've been quiet about this issue for far too long, which I realize now was a mistake. I just wanted to make everything perfectly clear in terms of User BloodofFox and his edits to all articles and categories pertaining to WikiProject Cryptozoology. I have recently been made aware of BloodofFox's edits to the article on the Cryptid whale and his removal of information without properly discussing it beforehand. A brief overview on the history of the article and the user's edits to it is this: Several times now, BloodofFox has either deleted the article with no discussion or attempted to get it deleted through legitimate means but failed to do so. When that failed he posted here complaining and lying to everyone stating that there was no consensus for its restoration even though he was a part of the consensus (he was against it) that determined that the article be restored. Now he is removing massive amounts of information that is legitimately sourced, under the claims that they don't mention cryptid whale in it, a similar tactic he has used for removing categories and reworking articles pertaining to Cryptozoology for the sole reason that they never mention the word "Cryptid" in the article. Cryptozoology is the study of "mystery" animals that have so far haven't been proven to exist by science. Any purported animals that are not only rooted in culture but also through claimed sightings and have not yet been proven to exist by science fits into the categorization of "Cryptid". Articles such as the Pope Lick Monster and the Melon Heads, which so far as I can tell, are only rooted in folklore due to a complete lack of purported sightings. These are acceptable reasons for removal from the WikiProject and its categories. However, Mass removal of sourced information from a controversial subject should be discussed first BEFORE they are removed which has never happened with the edits by BloodofFox. This might sound like ranting, and it might be, but I have ALWAYS tried to reach compromises and when I see edits and removal of legitimately sourced material, WikiProjects and Categories that have never been discussed with anyone, then that is an issue. Every time me or someone else adds these back in so that they can be properly discussed BEFORE they are removed, BloodofFox has reverted such edits under false claims of UNDUE and FRINGE whichout ever specifying a legitimate reason for removal and reversion of attempts to restore the material. Looking at both of BloodofFox's claims, it never clearly specifies the treatment of those articles the way the user has been doing. It only states that more caution be taken with such articles so that they are well balanced and do not contain bias of information if the source is legitimate and verified. True, some articles that were under the Cryptozoology banner were in some way "info bias" and not completely neutral. This would constitute more balanced coverage with theories from skeptics within the scientific community added if they come from legitimate sources. Rewriting an article so that it says "legendary [animal] from folklore" instead of purported [animal] found in folklore/ a part of folklore seems more appropriate. If there are no purported sightings that are backed up by legitimate sources then they should only be a part of the folklore category. If there are, then there is no reason why it cannot be a part of BOTH WikiProjects and categories if they are found in both folklore and through purported/legitimate sightings. I would love to hear from BloodofFox on what his opinion on what should be a part of the Cryptozoology WikiProject and why.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 20:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
(sighs)... Apparently sarcasm is considered a "personal attack". So much hate and opinion for one topic and I don't understand it... Oh, well. What can you do.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Already have... I tend not to edit those sort of things but lately I've noticed the edits to those kind of article which felt like vandalism. A sentiment that was confirmed by DarkKnight. But I will take your suggestion. Far too frustrating at the moment. Thanks...-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 23:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Not to get drawn into the cryptid morass, but a brief look at the article shows a link to a PDF of Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology which certainly looks like a whale-sized copyvio (and is our text copy-pasted out of this?). Someone is apparently being very naughty. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"Hypothetical whales". With that kind of title, it would probably also cover a number of Category:Controversial taxa. Taxa suggested by actual biologists or paleontologists, but with insufficient data for wide acceptance. Or Category:Undescribed species, where a species is known to exist, but never received a formal species description and is poorly understood. Dimadick ( talk) 16:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE policy is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, given certain language used in the section on so-called pseudoscience. I will make my case for this below.
According to WP:NPOV, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Furthermore, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
Next, let us examine language used at
WP:FRINGE:
"Pseudoscience: Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification."
"obviously bogus" is both a subjective phrase and, if I may say so, rather un-encyclopedic. What constitutes "obviously bogus" is going to be significantly different from editor to editor, based on people's worldview and various prejudices. And consensus is not relevant here either, since WP:NPOV specifies that the policy cannot be superseded by editor consensus!
It is inherently non-neutral to label a position in a debate as "pseudoscience", it amounts to taking sides.
"Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
What 'scientific community'? Truth is not decided by majority vote or consensus; there are communities of scientists all over the world, and all over the world you have groups of scientists who disagree with other groups. Deciding that your favored group is right, while other groups are wrong, and thus are 'pseudoscientific', is a clear violation of WP:NPOV's command to not take sides and present the sides without editorial bias. The facts may be presented. The proportional acceptance versus rejection of an idea can be stated; for example, it would be neutral and non-biased to say, "the majority of scientists reject the validity of astrology", since that statement is objectively verifiable. To say astrology is "pseudoscience", though, crosses the line into editorial bias because it labels it as "false science". This same thing applies to creation science and other so-called fringe groups as well. This 'pseudoscience' policy is a clear-cut case of "tyranny of the majority" in action.
"Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."
Lots more biased, subjective language here! For example, it is demonstrably false and defamatory (therefore libelous) to claim that biblical creationists lack a critical discourse. Not only do they engage in peer review and publish in scientific journals, but they also meet at conferences such as the International Conference on Creationism (ICC) to discuss and debate various aspects of creation science. You are free to disagree with creation science as an individual, but as an editor, it is your job to not take sides. This is not negotiable! WP:FRINGE violates this maxim, so it needs to be tossed.
"weak evidence" -- yes, another subjective evaluation which should be left to the debaters themselves, not WP editors
"suspect theoretical premise" -- suspect according to whom? Let the debaters decide and leave your opinion out of WP articles.
For any who read this-- thank you for your time. I hope you will consider my points in a level-headed fashion, even if you may be offended by what I am pointing out.
Thanks, -- Kanbei85 ( talk) 16:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In point of fact, our fringe guidance is an elaboration of (at least) WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL, which are intrinsic to WP:NPOV. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Probably of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gish gallop. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
And the AfD is now closed as speedy keep. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Should the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (FPIN) be branded as pseudoscience? This award was the first annual award given for nanotechnology. Many awardees have gone on to win other newer nanotechnology prizes after winning this award. One of the notable awardees is J. Fraser Stoddart, who won the FPIN in 2007 "[for having] pioneered the synthesis and assembly of unique active molecular machines for manufacturing into practical nanoscale devices". [3] In 2013, he was the co-chair the Foresight Institute Conference. He won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2016 "for the design and synthesis of molecular machines". [4] FPIN tries to be a leading indicator while Nobel is a trailing indicator. Most of the critisim seems directed at the awarding institution, the Foresight Institute, which also was recently branded as pseudoscience. Wouldn’t awardees not list this prize in their bio if they thought it was pseudoscience? StrayBolt ( talk) 09:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent removal of POV and Fringe tags from the article. While undoubtedly done in good faith, I think even a causal glance at the article shows that the issues discussed both here and on the article's talk page remain largely unresolved. The article is mostly one sided with little, bordering on no serious rebuttal to the conspiracy theories offered. Extra eye would be appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
SPA at Jakob Lorber ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adding either original research or copyvio. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
A giant (purported) Peruvian bat. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
A discussion that started on talk:homeopathy has spread to a one-against-many dispute at placebo, an article I incidentally find to be rather bloated with references to woo-mongers bigging up the magic of placebo. Guy ( Help!) 22:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Undergoing a lot of editing. Mostly ok I think. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I've removed new content from the article [8]:
New content on phones: cancer risks arise from mobile phone radiation, which is increasingly supported by modern science and groups of scientists
Old version: cancer risks arise from mobile phone radiation, which is pseudoscientific
I only glanced at the article Mobile phone radiation and health, but the new content seems to be fringe. The old version seems awkward at best.
New addition on fluoride: fluoride and fluoridation is harming overall health. Mercola is supportive of the lawsuit brought by six non-profits against the EPA for failure to enforce their Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) regulations based specifically on evidence of the neurotoxic effects of fluoride on the developing central nervous system.
I think his views on fluoride may deserve mention, but this addition looks to be skirting FRINGE to use the article as a soapbox for fringe viewpoints.-- Ronz ( talk) 16:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This article said "He is a board examiner of the American Board of Anti-Aging Medicine (ABAAM)" without noting that this is not a recognized board, and "[h]is practice focuses on alternative therapies that are not yet standard practice with mainstream doctors,[2] maintaining that mainstream medicine tends to be an average of 17 years behind the emergence of new and advanced treatments".
I fixed those egregious issues, but there's a lot more to do here. Guy ( Help!) 12:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
USS Nimitz UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Radar visual reporting of a UFO during a 2004 Navy training mission, much hyped in mainstream media in 2107 2017. Some recent
lobbying on the Talk page seeking to diminish/invalidate criticism by skeptics, particularly
Joe Nickell, and boost/validate the narrative of proponents, namely "To The Stars Academy", a fringe advocacy group seeking funding for UFO research. This group played a significant role in fueling sensational media reporting last year, and is currently promoting a purported "classified report" about the incident. Some obvious
WP:SYNTH now being edit-warred to the article
[10],
[11] in an effort to rebut critique by Nickell of To The Stars Academy's fringe narrative. A few more eyes appreciated. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 03:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Radar visual reporting of a UFO during a 2004 Navy training mission, much hyped in mainstream media in 2107.Well, we've got 87 years before those sources get published, so I would remove them all from the article for now. Yes, this comment is a joke. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I'm putting together a rewrite of the infamous Mokele-mbembe, but I'm having some trouble making sense of the sources. For those of you haven't been involved in the recent pseudoscience cleanup efforts in these areas (articles around the living dinosaur- Young Earth creationism- cryptozoology pseudoscience circle, that is), this article may be perplexing and the topic requires a little background.
Essentially, the article is written like so many others related to it on Wikipedia: mostly in direct violation of WP:PROFRINGE. Individuals who fall out of line with the fringe view, like academics, are described as a "skeptic" and ushered into the back. Heavy emphasis is placed on "sightings", etc. Where this one differs from the usually quackery is that reliable sources on this topic in fact do exist (thus meeting WP:FRIND), but they tell a very different story than the current article does. It turns out that a lot of the material produced on this topic results from Young Earth creationist-cryptozoologist overlap, as paleontologist Donald Prothero's work on this topic illustrates (see his The Story of Life in 25 Fossils: Tales of Intrepid Fossil Hunters and the Wonders of Evolution, pp.232-234, Columbia University Press and also Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids, pp. 115-116, 262-265, Columbia University Press with Loxton).
In short, creationist groups have been funding cryptozoologist trips to Africa to find this purported dinosaur (or, if you're a cryptozoologist, a "cryptid") for quite some time now (reaching back as far as the 1980s, even). Their goal? To 'prove evolution wrong'. Typically, while well known, you won't find this less than savory fact mentioned by notable adherents of the pseudoscience themselves (but you might find a citation or two to genesispark.com from cryptozoologists, like in George M. Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology(!)). It all makes for a case book example of why WP:FRIND is so important in these corners.
This idea of Mokele-mbembe comes from somewhere, yet the ultimate source of these concepts seems pretty blurry. A lot of writers mention it comes from some kind of folk belief, but that may not actually be the case. For example, editors who have researched the history of the concept of the yeti knows that this can be a complex topic, perhaps even resulting from some kind of misunderstanding in translation, and then taking on a life of its own. Anyway, does anyone know of any solid sources on the origin of the Mokele-mbembe concept? Any specialist linguists, anthropologists, or folklorists who can shine some light on how all this developed as a vehicle for the we-gotta-find-a-dinosaur-to-prove-evolution-is-wrong crowd?
(Also posted at WP:RSN a few days ago, but also posting here since it's quite relevant to this noticeboard.) :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Currently our article cryptid whale relies heavily on pseudoscience sources. Specifically, the article is based on cryptozoologist George M. Eberhart's apologetic, pro-cryptozoology tome Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology (as @ Alexbrn: points out above, the article quite brazenly also includes link to a PDF of the work, a straightforward copyright violation). In short, cryptozoologists have a long fascination with beach blobs (which they may call " globsters"). They have a tendency to identify animal carcasses that wash up on shores as sea serpents (or living dinosaurs).
To prop up the pseudoscience and general crackpottery, several sources from actual scientists who make no mention of the word cryptozoology nor the pseudoscientific concept of a "cryptid" are included alongside Eberhart's book. Considering how hostile scientists and other academics appear to have become toward the pseudoscience (cryptozoology has, for example, increasingly becomes a vessel for Young Earth creationism), I doubt these scientists appreciate this invented association. No secondary sources are provided to contextualize cryptozoologist claims (not surprising, as this tends to make cryptozooologists look, uh, less than respectable). This is classic WP:PROFRINGE stirred with a strong dose of WP:SYNTH to make it appear palatable.
While I can't guess the primary author's intent, behavior like this in is in fact common among cryptozoologists, as scholars who have studied cryptozoologists note. This would all be pretty straightforward to fix (root out anything that doesn't mention the concept of a "cryptid whale", bring in academic sources discussing cryptozoologist tendency to identify beach blubs as 'potential sea monsters'), but editing the article has attracted not only the ire of the article's primary author, but also cryptozoologists, all of who appear to be ready to edit-war to keep the article as-is. The article needs more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of the statements attribured to Eberhart have some logical problems as well, regardless of what one thinks of cryptozoology.
"Given the species' alleged size and attributes, it is extremely doubtful such a species would not have been taken (and reported) by modern commercial whalers, bringing into doubt its very existence."
In response to a single sighting in 1867. Eberhart does not seem to address the possibility that the proposed species has since went extinct. And there has been a moratorium on commercial whaling since 1982, with few countries (Iceland, Japan, and Norway) still maintaining fleets of whalers. Large sections of the world ocean no longer have any whaling activities to serve as Eberhart's source of potential data. See also the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and the attempts to ban all types of commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean, to the south of Chile's Tierra del Fuego. (The sighting which Eberhart describes supposedly occured in Chile's territorial waters.) Dimadick ( talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It is slightly starting to annoy me that BOF is constantly "name calling" and attempt to delegitimize any editor that disagrees with him. Doesn't seem that professional to me. Even though Cryptozoology is a Pseudoscience, it's WikiProject was only trying to add and improve articles relating to it and not "Legitimizing it" as you claim. I am not at all stating that Cryptids exist, many of them do not, but the purported SIGHTINGS of mystery animals should be included into the WikiProject and not removed from it just because it doesn't mention the word cryptid. Cryptozoology itself is defined as "the study of hidden animals and of still unknown animal forms that have yet to be proved by science. This was later expanded to include any "out-of-place animals, and feral animals". The full definition can be found Here-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully that link was helpful... It's hard finding a detailed definition from someone that isn't a part of the pseudoscience. :( -- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop name calling BloodofFox.... Dunky does have a point though... Wikipiedia is and ENCYCLOPIEDIA not an opinions board. We just report information, not use it as a place to rant and rave about how you don't agree with one subject. If there is information that is reliable than it SHOULD be added, regardless of ones opinions/leanings. You have been very disruptive and rude to quite a few users including myself, resorting to name calling when you don'e agree with them. Please just let it go BloodofFox... For the sake of ALL of our mental health.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff?-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 02:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Although the title of the page is a bit weird, mysterious whales are not just the province of cryptozoology but are part of zoology, Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni did not identify as cryptozoologists and Bob Pitman has talked about unknown Mesoplodon species in the 1990s (Pitman, R. L., A. Aguayol and J. Urbán r 1987. Observations of an unidentified beaked whale (Mesoplodon sp.) in the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 3: 345–352. subsequently described and allocated see Pitman, R. L. and Lynn, M. S. (2001), BIOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS OF AN UNIDENTIFIED MESOPLODONT WHALE IN THE EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC AND PROBABLE IDENTITY MESOPLODON PERUVIANUS. Marine Mammal Science, 17: 648-657. doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01010.x). The problem here is the title of the page (replace "cryptid" with "mystery"?). If you are going to claim Quoy and Gaimard and Giglioni are cryptozoologists presumably because of their insidious apparently pseudoscientific observations(fancy suggesting in the 19th century that there were unknown species of whale, what a bunch of crazies!) you have to also include Bob Pitman one of the foremost marine mammalogists in the world as one too. See the problem with labelling all of cryptozoology, pseudoscience? It is hardly consistent to say if cryptozoologists speculate about unknown species of whale, it is pseudoscience, but if zoologists do it is science. P'raps it is time to stop the anti-cryptozoology witchhunt and have more nuanced articles? Tullimonstrum ( talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I prefer another term for pseudoscientific endeavors: 'sham inquiry.' Cryptozoology typically qualifies."And Abominable Science says
"If its adherent want cryptozoology to be taken seriously as a true science, rather than as a pseudoscience or "sham inquiry," they must have to begin to play by the rules of real science."Some scientists may very occasionally describe what they're doing as cryptozoology, and some "cryptozoologists" may occasionally do actual science, but the overwhelming evidence appears to be that cryptozoology as a whole is described by relevant experts as a pseudoscience (or a euphemism for pseudoscience). And yes, the existing lead isn't entirely accurate, but that's at least partially a product of the article title and the cryptozoology books being used as references. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Why doesn't someone either put this article up as an AFD discussion or improve it? All I read is endless complaint on both sides and deletions with reverts. I thought we were supposed to work on consensus here. The article as it stand is pure speculative fringe. I think it could stand some more sourcing but seriously, there is not actually any reputable scientific sourcing about this. At best it is folklore. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 14:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll begin by addressing
LuckyLouie's issue that "Cryptozooligist Eberhart is used as the main source for the assertion that cryptozoolgists believe cryptid whales exist
". However, Eberhart's book that lists "
Giglioli's Whale" (which Eberhart calls "The Magenta Whale") does not substantiate that Eberhart believes in its existence. I hope you realize this.
The original paragraph did not say Cryptid whales were cetaceans "claimed to exist by cryptozoologist". Before this edit it just said "sea creatures claimed to exist", so in plain reading the reader would see this as claims being made by earlier naturalists such as Giglioli and Sibbald. Not cryptozoologists.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 18:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean, this is one of the linchpins of the argument of this being pseudoscience: the pretense that every cryptid that Ebert et al. talks about, they are claiming they have proven the existence of. If it were true, I agree that would be enough to call them fringe, without further elaborating. But it is a lie.
Therefore you need to illustrate by actual specific examples of what pieces of pseudoscience are being used, portrayed as definitive scientific proof. I am not seeing any of this here or in the Cryptozoology article.
Another pillar of Bloodofox's claim is the constant association he tries to create with Young earth creationism as if these notable cryptozoologists are steeped deep in its belief. He mentions it 6 times in this thread, clearly overkill, an additional 2 times elsewhere on this noticeboard, in Talk:Cryptid whale as well.
A third is his notion that an "avalanche of academic sources flatly referring to it as a pseudoscience
". If that were true he should not have to refer to this Jeb J. Card figure, who seems to be a relative non-entity, four times in this thread. He should be able to quote from a variety of figures of higher esteem and standing, here or in
Cryptozoology. It is a grossly inflated claim.--
Kiyoweap (
talk) 03:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry that it has to be me again who points out that this is a noticeboard. Noticeboards are for posting short notices, and maybe a few comments to the short notices.
Should this discussion not be on, I don't know, Talk:Cryptid whale? Or Talk:Cryptozoology? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The main author of this article is user:Mazkyri, an obvious name match for the subject. As usual with any content related to life extension, the article heaps fulsome praise on the subject but with a dearth of sources outside the walled garden of anti-ageing quackery. Guy ( Help!) 12:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I just cut out a bunch of "this traces back to ancient Greece" twaddle. I would appreciate someone looking over my (un-)work. Mangoe ( talk) 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Potentially of interest to the community: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Thought and Ethics. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Enjoy! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And the silly tabloid makes a major error in the first paragraph of the text "The Rapture is an event many Christians believe marks the return of the son of God – and all the believers will disappear from Earth up to Heaven in the "twinkling of an eye". "
The Rapture as a concept is held by only a minority of Christians, and the popularization of the idea is largely credited to John Nelson Darby (1800–1882).
Back in the 2000s, comic book writer Chuck Austen wrote an X-Men storyline concerning the Rapture, and attributed the concept to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. The story was largely ridiculed in Internet comic-book websites, because Austen had a very poor understanding of the Rapture, that most people supporting the concept are Protestants, and that Catholic teachings on "prophetic" books have nothing to do with Dispensationalism. See here for more conversation on the topic: https://comicdomwrecks.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/top-5-chuck-austen-x-men-moments/ Dimadick ( talk) 21:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: - the solstice was at June 21, 2018, at 10:07 UTC so you posted it too late for the Future Predictions so now it has to go in the very long section of Past Predictions. Has the next "End of the World" prediction popped up in the "Daily Whatever" or do they limit them to once a week?
This short discussion is far more noticeboard-y than all those long pages above where you, Paleface, and others try to argue for your own standpoints on the subject of whether cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. The news it points to could conceivably lead to WP edits by people who want to include the news in some article, and a few snarky but informative comments are tradition on this page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
a few snarky but informative comments are tradition on this pageTo be fair, people getting all bent out of shape and upset over said snarky comments is just as much of a tradition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Mušḫuššu is an entity from the Babylonian record. It turns out that over the years the being has become a topic of interest to Young Earth creationists, cryptozoologists, and other related pseudoscience adherents. As the article has recently seen a cleanup by myself and others, it could use more eyes, especially until it gets a solid rewrite. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a minor edit war at this article that might fall under this noticeboard's purview. I have no clue about the subject in question but maybe some editors with more knowledge could keep an eye on it. Regards So Why 12:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
200+ years ago, "sovereign" people was a common term and is still in current law. Now some people consider it a "fringe" idea and a theory, not reality. So does time change a topic from normal to "fringe"? I say 'no". Rgojoey ( talk) 21:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
2600:1010:b149:71e0:463:2c:4c65:6dbf ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) "exposing corruption in Wikipedia" by adding unsourced fringe theories to Fluoride [17] [18] Tera TIX 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not just that. I've compiled a list of the stuff he/she believes. He/she believes that fluoride cannot be found naturally in water, Wikipedia editors are trying to deceive and brainwash people, fluoride is put in water to poison and control people, plants do not absorb fluoride, fluoride does not prevent tooth decay, dentists are in on the conspiracy, coconut oil is perfect for keeping your gums healthy, teeth heal themselves, our entire skeletons completely heal themselves every ten years, the only studies done on fluoride for the teeth were by an aluminum company, selling fluoride is a form of genocide, Nazis used fluoride in concentration camps, the use of fluoride in water is illegal, fluoride is used to harm the pineal gland (which is apparently your third eye) to stop you from accessing limitless hidden senses, films are trustworthy sources, alternative medicine isn't pseudoscience, the MMR vaccine causes autism, Wakefield worked on the MMR vaccine, vaccine are poisonous, vaccines are not mainstream, the levels of sometimes toxic things in vaccines are dangerous, stories on an anti-vaxxer website are trustworthy and are evidence against vaccines, and there is a giant conspiracy by the government, pharmacies, and places that offer free flu shots. Wyrm127 ( talk) 05:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Wyrm172 I don't appreciate your attitude of snark and the op was correct about SOME things. Films can be a good source of information, a lot of alternative medicine isn't pseudoscience even by wikipedias insane definition as it is WIDELY practiced and taught in many respectable colleges in the east. Vaccines can cause Autism, and some stories are true. This attitude is exactly what is wrong with wikipedia and why new editors numbers have been dropping off for the last ten years
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/713292/jesus-christ-cannabis-oil-miracle-weed-bible -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:52, 3 July 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.
In case anyone wants to discover their past lives. Humor — Paleo Neonate – 04:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
HA! My mom loves this crap. She owns most of the books Weiss has written. I've actually read Many Lives, Many Masters and can say with certainty that it's a load of hogwash anecdotes about his "patients" dreaming and talking to him while they were half-conscious - much like I do before going to sleep, except he writes it down and tries to convince them it was all real. Probably charges a ton for it, too. Kinda makes me sick to think that my mom and so many others truly believe the dude. Nanophosis ( talk) 21:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not a chat site. If this is not a discussion of making changes to an article then it's going to have to stop.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently the lede of
chaos magic says "Often referred to as 'success magic' or 'results-based magic', chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of objective results over the symbolic, ritualistic, theological or otherwise ornamental aspects of other occult traditions."
Then there's a section that says "Chaos magic grew out of the desire to strip away all of these extraneous elements, leaving behind only the techniques for effecting change; hence the emphasis is on actually doing things – i.e., experimenting with different techniques, rather than memorising complex rules, symbols and correspondences – and then retaining those techniques that produce results"
To me, this looks like the definition of a fringe theory. And then we have spinoff pages like
Servitor (chaos magic), where we are making statements in Wikipedia's voice like "When a complex of thoughts, desires and intentions gains such a level of sophistication that it appears to operate autonomously from the magician's consciousness, as if it were an independent being, then such a complex is referred to as a servitor."
Is this a topic that can make claims about the state of the world and use labels like "results based", but somehow not be subject to fringe guidelines? --
tronvillain (
talk) 13:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
"Other magical traditions like Wicca, Qabalah or the Golden Dawn system combine techniques for bringing about change with 'beliefs, attitudes, a conceptual model of the universe (if not several), a moral ethic, and a few other things besides.' Chaos magic grew out of the desire to strip away all of these extraneous elements, leaving behind only the techniques for effecting change; hence the emphasis is on actually doing things – i.e., experimenting with different techniques, rather than memorising complex rules, symbols and correspondences – and then retaining those techniques that produce results."any better? It's still claiming to produce actual results. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps this can be resolved by judicious editing... for example: instead of saying: “... chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of objective results...” we could say “... chaos magic emphasizes the attainment of (what are perceived as being) objective results...” or something similar. I think the goal is for the reader to understand that any “results” don’t have to BE real... the important thing is that the results are BELIEVED to be real by practitioners. Blueboar ( talk) 16:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
"Often referred to as 'success magic' or 'results-based magic', chaos magic claims to emphasize the attainment of objective results over the symbolic, ritualistic, theological or otherwise ornamental aspects of other occult traditions."I suppose I could just ask for clarification of exactly what that is supposed to mean over there. Maybe "success magic" and "results-based magic" isn't claiming to produce real world results. -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this article, I'm seeing a lot of red flags. This includes the intro that you're highlighting. For one, the article's sourcing is very poor (the article almost entirely relies on works by adherents or pop culture stuff from non-academcs) and much of the article appears to be written from a more or less emic perspective. Chaos magic is indeed fringe stuff, and I wonder what scholars have to say about the topic. Have you checked around for peer-reviewed items? :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
"Of course in a probability based universe such as this, some things remain more possible than others. Fortunately we can precisely calculate how much probability distortion a given act of magic will produce using the following equations of magic: [equations here]."-- tronvillain ( talk) 18:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys. Full disclosure: I've substantially rewritten and expanded the chaos magic page over the past month or so, so I am biased here. But here's my two cents: chaos magic is based around the belief that there is no such thing as objective truth. So I don't see how it's possible for this to be classified as pseudoscience, which consists of truth statements that are not supported by science. The entire thing is based around the idea that none of it is objectively real. Yes, Peter J. Carroll uses scientific-looking equations and so on. But he also uses rituals that invoke the fictional characters of HP Lovecraft -- and does both of these things under the explanation that "belief is a tool for achieving effects". [1] To take those things out of context perhaps makes them seem like pseudoscience. But within the framework of chaos magic, it's clear they are a form of game being played with different symbol systems. As chaos magic states, Carroll also advises assigning beliefs like "atheism" and "fundamentalist christianity" to the sides of a die, then randomly adopting them for a set period of time to see how it affects your psychology. Everything is done under the banner of "none of this is real/objectively true, we're just pretending that it's true temporarily, because that's what all occultism is anyway." So I don't see how it can be classed as pseudoscience. Rune370 ( talk) 21:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
As someone who is completely unfamiliar with this subject matter, Chaos Magic sounds like an abstract version of Wicca#Eclectic_Wicca. FWIW, Wicca is not under the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, rather WikiProject Religion/New religious movements. Within the lede is the following citation: Clarke, Peter Bernard (2006). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Psychology Press. pp. 105ff. ISBN 978-0-415-26707-6. This source identifies Chaos Magic as the same category, that it is a new religious movement? If so, I believe your perspective holds merit. The editor of the work was affiliated with Oxford and King's College. Kintpuash ( talk) 04:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
As I said I am not sure this is a Fringe issue, but then to what degree are modern magical "traditions" religions as opposed to systems of believe or philosophical concepts. In the case of Chaos magic the claim that it is "results based" (and thus (in a sense) empirically based) as well as its reliance of maths (although many other magical traditions (I.E. ones more then 100 years old) often relied on mathematical equations and even astronomical observations) does shift in into the realms of Pseudoscience. I think however we may need an RFC on this to attract the attention of the religion taskforcers. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
they apply to fields of study, in which there's an identifiable mainstream view- such as philosophy, physics, mathematics and everything derived from those fields? This is not Plato's Cave, it's screaming "Nothing is real, so let's fuck everything up, since it's not real anyway". Seems fringy, at the very least. Stuff exists, stuff is real, that's an identifiable mainstream view.
What is the mainstream view that we're supposed to be giving appropriate weight to?...
What are we supposed to be giving more weight to?- we need less in-world prose and more academic research on this social phenomena. Since you care about this article, perhaps you could point us in the right direction and find a few sources? byteflush Talk 00:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, this is taking up enough of my life. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that the consensus here is that I am wrong, and that the main issue with the chaos magic page is not the POV, not the quality of the sources, but that it presents a fringe theory, and that the solution is therefore to give proper weight to the corresponding mainstream theory.
I am at a total loss as to what the relevant mainstream theory is. So please, can I get some help on this? Can people just pile on, over the next two or three days, and identify the relevant mainstream theory for each section of the article? Then I can rewrite it, giving proper balance to the mainstream view, and we can get the tag removed.
But please, please, please, do not say something along the lines of "well, really the issue here is that we need academic sources", or "the wording needs to be more neutral", because that is a tacit admission that "fringe theory" is the wrong tag, identifying the wrong problem.
So, here are the sections:
What mainstream theory am I supposed to give more weight to in each bit?
JzG, Tronvillain, Blueboar, Byteflush -- can I get your help on this? You've all been relatively vocal that this is a fringe theory. At the moment it feels like I'm trying to have a debate, and I'm just shouting into the wind. Can you help me identify the solution to the problem you've identified, please? Rune370 ( talk) 12:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
References
And some OR. User:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau is adding, under a sentence on Freud. "That is a typical "fringe theory". However, Champolion and Fabre d'églantine also adopted that fringe theory with more guesses than arguments. However, in their best-seller book Secrets of the Exodus, the two French egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah based on various intercultural comparisons to affirm, like the three preceding persons, that the Hebrews originated in the faithful of Akhenaten. [1] Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator in the Egyptian department of the Louvre, also underlined several similarities between Egyptian culture and the Bible. [2]"
and deleting
Additionally, the historical Pithom was built in the 7th century BC, during the Saite period. [3] [4]
which also made a bit of a formatting mess. [19] He was reverted by User:A. Parrot and by me twice today. He's been blocked for editwarring in the past.
This seems to be a combination of original research and fringe. I haven't been able to find out the credentials of the Sabbah brothers (Amazon just says " brothers and the descendants of a long line of rabbis and chief rabbis" but did find a translation of a review in Figaro. [20] - Jean-Marie Tasset seems to write mainly on art. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about this deletion: "Additionally, the historical Pithom was built in the 7th century BC, during the Saite period.[3][4]" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (
talk •
contribs) 17:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Tasset is the author of several books, see his bibliography. Dimadick ( talk) 17:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Tasset is a journalist who made a summary of Secrets of the Exodus. The issue is that that book makes, as Tasset explains, a great many comparisons between both cultures: Judaic and Egyptian. Since the whole demonstration of the Sabbahs is that both cultures are exactly the same, then, the great quantity of similar comparisons added by the famous Egyptologist Desroches-Noblecourt cannot be ignored.
Doug Weller talk 04:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Recent POV edits that may require some attention. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 14:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This is only borderline as to our interests, but the upshot is the claim that the astronauts of the Skylab 4 mission basically took a whole day off. Actual transcripts of transmission show it didn't happen, but since they are Official (and, well, as primary as sources can get) we have one hardhead who insists that we have to say it happened. Discussion both on the talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Skylab_mutiny. Mangoe ( talk) 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I have a COI regarding the above. My Ankles no longer exist, and have become Cankles (Cankles = merged Calves and ankles) and the article seems to hint that the featherlight touches practitioners employ actually does some good. Eyes? - Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, Wikimedia Foundation staff have been working with YouTube to learn more about the feature (called information panels) developed by their team which will link to Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica articles from videos about conspiracy theories on YouTube. This announcement was first made in March of this year, and the feature will be rolled out starting this week. (This was previously discussed onwiki here, here, and here, amongst other places). We wanted to let folks know about the rollout and share more information about articles that may be impacted by the new feature. We have been supplied with a list of the initial English Wikipedia articles that they are going to be linking to. Those articles are: Global warming, Dulce Base, Lilla Saltsjöbadsavtalet, 1980 Camarate air crash, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Kecksburg UFO incident, and MMR vaccine.
The Foundation staff who are in contact with YouTube about the feature spoke with a handful of admins leading up to the rollout. From those conversations, we do not anticipate this will create a substantial increase in vandalism on English Wikipedia, but we will be monitoring this with the YouTube team. If you have any questions, concerns, or notice an increase in negative behavior on those articles, please let me or GVarnum-WMF know.
You can find an overview of the announcement from YouTube in this section of their latest blog post. We will update you here if we have more new information. Cheers, Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I completed some cleanup of the Kecksburg incident: [22] jps ( talk) 15:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
After Gwen and Goop, are we about to have another one go to the darkside? - Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I take umbrage to saying biblical creationism is fringe as it has a large following LordFluffington454 ( talk) 12:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
(moved from Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories as it was misplaced). — Paleo Neonate – 12:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes I realize by your "policies" you are correct however I suggest the policy is incorrect because it ignores the fact that hundreds of millions of people believe in it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFluffington454 ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Edward Bach ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was Edward Bach a bacteriologist? The only indications I could find that this was so were some websites that claimed because he was an advocate for the germ theory of disease, he was a bacteriologist. I can't find any evidence that he actually did any baceteriology research, but I may have missed something.
jps ( talk) 14:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
"He was for a time demonstrator of bacteriology at University College Hospital and casuality medical officer, and at the London Temperance Hospital he was casualty house surgeon. He later became bacteriologist to the London Homeopathic Hospital."[2] -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
References
There is a minor content dispute about the criticism of this journal. Input is appreciated to improve wording and sourcing. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 18:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
A related article, Myth of the flat Earth in Middle Ages was recently renamed, another editor contests it (I'm not sure if the move was justified). Another relevant article, Flat Earth has a merge tag at the top to a red link. There are likely other related articles. It would be nice to see what's up and find out the proper presentation/splitting, considering the relation to modern fringe flat-earthism. — Paleo Neonate – 17:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Which I suspect may be reinstated. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It seems like the entries on Carlos Castaneda (and the related articles Don Juan Matus, Tensegrity (Castaneda), and Cleargreen) need additional eyes. They have a number of WP:FRINGE and unreliable sourcing problems, and several portions seem to be written by "true believers".
For background: Early reviewers seem to have regarded Castaneda's early books as largely legitimate ethnography, and he received a PhD on the basis of the research he supposedly conducted on Native American Shamanism. However, subsequent work strained credibility and eventually went off the deep-end with full blown claims of shape-shifting and psychic battles with witches. By the time Castaneda died he was running a cult and selling new-age seminars for $600 a person. All of the books are now widely accepted to have been fabricated, and no one believes that this is an accurate depiction of Toltec religious beliefs. See: here, and a longer article from Salon here for more details. Any help is appreciated. Nblund talk 15:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
These are all redirects now to Castaneda article. The only cited information was on Don Juan Matus which I have moved to main article. —DIYeditor ( talk) 03:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
There's an RfC at Talk:University of the People where two editors with a long history of edits promoting the subject, are the only ones commenting. I think this needs more eyes. The government of South Africa has released a statement calling UoP fraudulent, and these editors insist this is original research, synthesis, they ran out of gas! they got a flat tire! They didn’t have change for cab fare! They lost their tux at the cleaners! They locked their keys in the car! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole their car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN’T UoP's FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD! Guy ( Help!) 11:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Meanwhile the Department has been in contact with the authentic University of the People (UoPeople) and has determined that the institution is duly registered and accredited by the relevant US authorities.And this:
However, due to the fact that UoPeople has no legal or physical presence in the form of operation sites in South Africa, the university is still considered unlicensed to operate in this country.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhas Mitra (2nd nomination).
This subject has been discussed from time-to-time in the past on this board.
jps ( talk) 18:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
See [29] Doug Weller talk 19:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Our friend User:TotalFailure was busy recently in this article, and while I'm not terribly familiar with the material, the nature of TF's editing of late and the title of one section that he added give me pause. It would be helpful if someone were to check it out. Mangoe ( talk) 12:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to @ Mangoe: we have the first draft of a possible guideline for prodigies. A notice was posted to WP:BLPN but only gained the response from @ GRuban: and is now archived. Since many of the issues showed up on this noticeboard as well, I thought I'd let y'all know. More input would, of course, be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 15:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Two users are systematically promoting the anti-Normanist fringe theory (two topics at the bottom of the talk page).-- Ymblanter ( talk) 19:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I just removed a bunch of stuff that was, as far as I could tell, original research. Post hoc claims of UFO sightings need to be sourced and explained clearly. This had not been done.
I could have messed up.
Help is appreciated.
jps ( talk) 04:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
List of reported UFO sightings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apologies, I forgot to link. jps ( talk) 16:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Can someone else PLEASE put this page on their watchlists? It's being spammed and it needs a lot more cleanup. [31] jps ( talk) 01:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Super blood moon APOCALYPSE: Bible prophecy predicts End of World just ‘DAYS away’ -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#The_intersection_of_BLPSPS_and_PSCI Jytdog ( talk) 18:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I stumbled on an article at Maxwell's zombie which looks kind of fringey, and possibly not even notable enough to merit an article, but I wasn't too sure. Folks here might be interested. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 20:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently Wikipedia's coverage of Slavic folklore courses with fringe stuff. For example, until recently Slavic folklore redirected to Slavic paganism (I created the former recently). Slavic mythology still directs to Slavic paganism. Of course, myth is a folklore genre that is not restricted to the pagan period, and Slavic mythology is in no way synonymous with Slavic paganism, anyway. Additionally, it happens that Slavic mythology and Slavic paganism are in fact very poorly attested in the historic record, with far less to draw from than, say, the historic Germanic corpus. However, you wouldn't know it from Wikipedia's articles, which attempt to present a synthesized, holistic view of historical Slavic paganism.
It seems to me that a lot of potentially nationalist fringe theories currently run wild in these corners, conflating theory and fact at every corner. Any idea what do about this? Slavic folklore and ancient Slavic studies receives little attention in Western academia, but sources like Puhvel's Comparative Mythology might be good places to start, and if nothing else, these corners need far more eyes. Pinging editors working in related corners: @ Katolophyromai:, @ Iryna Harpy:, @ Alarichall:. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Miracle of the Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Repeated removal of criticism from lead. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Proposed revisions of the BLP of Alan Sabrosky are under discussion at the article's talk page. Sabrosky is a former academic and proponent of 9/11 and antisemitic conspiracy theories. His page was recently kept as no consensus, with the decision coming after a long discussion on the grounds that he once held a named chair at the United States Army War College. It is not clear why he left this enviable job at a relatively young age. The current discussion is about the weight to give his fringe theorizing in a revised version of his page. I think it would be useful if editors with experience in 9/11 conspiracy theories would weigh in. thank you, E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
There's a content dispute on the Dinesh D'Souza talk page [33] over whether we should cite favorable reviews by Rush Limbaugh and a Moonie Times op-ed writer of a D'Souza book which asserts similarities between the Democratic Party and the Nazi party platform of the 1930s. Historians overwhelmingly reject the thesis of the book, [34] [35] yet non-experts such Rush Limbaugh and Moonie Times op-ed writer Michael Taube support the thesis of the book. Per my understanding of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE, we ought not cite non-expert minority opinions on matters that diverge from mainstream scholarship, as it gives readers the false impression that there is an on-going debate about the veracity of the claims. Perhaps you can add some clarification on this. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Everything he says here is accurateand
There is not the slightest, tiny sliver in which this could be even somewhat accurateare statements of fact, not subjective opinions of the reviewers, and should not be placed next to each other as if they carry equal weight. – dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Reviews, as a rule, are only as good as the reviewer, so reviews of specialist non-fiction material in MSM are, as a rule, worthless unless they've called in an expert. There is also a timeliness issue in that reviews of novel claims pretty much fall under WP:NOTNEWS, since they are capturing initial reactions rather than the conclusions of long-thought-out consideration and discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Some forum shopping appears to be going on in relation to this article (pointing at the current dispute at its talk page), so I'm also posting a notification here for balance. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 22:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
UFO Phil ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article loaded down with WP:SENSATIONAL sources resulting in WP:UNDUEly bloated coverage of comically ridiculous fringe claims, thanks to many IP edits over time likely made by the Los Angeles-area actor who portrays this character. Obviously, the gimmick is all about maintaining the illusion that UFO Phil is a real person and not a character/performance, but IMO, it's now crossing the line into misusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. If the character were to be treated as a real person, it would be subject to WP:FRINGEBLP. If the character were to be treated as a character, it would be subject to MOS:FICT. I'd be curious to know what others think. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I have never heard of him, but a 2011 article from the Huffington Post simply describes him as a "comedy songwriter and filmmaker". RationalWiki describes him as "an over-the-top parody of a UFO believer and alien abductee played by actor Rick Still." See here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/UFO_Phil
Wow, this article has grown since I was here last in 2007, when his single aired on The Art Bell Show-- Auric talk 00:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it's time to put this up for deletion. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster#RfC: Should the EmDrive be labeled as Pseudoscience? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Article about a fringe amateur Egyptologist's ideas with no independent sources. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
In the vein of articles about people using aliases.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Goddard.
jps ( talk) 00:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
Recently, two false claims were made against Spencer Proffer on his Wiki page. The false claims are the second (Admits to making false claims) and third (Settles for fraud) section of the page. Please have these sections deleted as there is no factual evidence of either of these claims.
Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.36.97 ( talk) 20:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Lead used to call him a global warming skeptic until an SPA arrived and removed it. I'm wondering if this guy is notable. I did find this Guardian article. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
What standard would you all say makes a denier notable for being a denier? WP:FRINGEBLP would generally argue that as long as there are independent sources on a person, they're notable. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that. jps ( talk) 10:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medawar zone. jps ( talk) 16:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
As a heads up, this Fox "news" item will probably be causing issues in multiple places across the encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 ( talk) 20:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
foxnews.com/science. Clear. jps ( talk) 03:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Leland D. Melvin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-- Auric talk 11:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Since I seem to be the "enemy " here, with the suggestion that I might be misusing my tools, I'd appreciate it if others could deal with this. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The first article has been subject of undisclosed paid edits from a PR agency (already banned), probably from others too. It is full of fringe theories using Ilchi Lee's organizations as the main source. Here is an example I have just removed ( [46]):
Lee's Korean Institute of Brain Science (KIBS), which was granted UN ECOSOC "roster consultative status" and Lee's International Brain Education Association (IBREA) report that Lee's programs not only help children develop better memory and concentration but also certain supernatural abilities (or Extrasensory Perception - ESP) due to "Heightened Sensory Perception," as their studies find that children could identify colors, shapes, and letters while blindfolded. - although this ability was found by KIBS to diminish significantly with less ambient light and greater filtering of the viewed material. While Lee asserts that these findings are based on cognitive neuroscience, mainstream neurologists generally regard such conclusions as strongly lacking in scientific support.
Both articles would benefit from a review. Thanks. -- MarioGom ( talk) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I realized that the article has neutrality (and likely source quality) issues and started a thread at Talk:Prana#Neutrality. I'll try to return to it, but input and help is always welcome. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 10:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Ran into this article after I saw this edit. The lead starts "Moses is a British documentary programme that chronicles the life of Moses using scientific and contemporary historical evidence." Which to my mind is saying that you can actually do that because he's a real historical figure for which there is evidence. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Article written by a Theosophist who has created many other pro-Theosophy articles on Wikipedia. A scan for his username on the archives of this board reveals users discussing his edits in the past on several occasions. From first look the article may look ok and fool users as the article creator is an expert at layout and referencing material, especially Russian sources, but on investigation about 80% of the sources are fringe Theosophy sources. Seems a very unbalanced article to promote Theosophy as having valid scientific ideas. Also bad quote mining of James Jeans in the "Theosophy and physics" section and other dubious material.
Same editor has written many other promotional Theosophy articles like What Are The Theosophists?, Occult or Exact Science? etc 80.225.31.28 ( talk) 01:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This is very bad, it may need administrator intervention. SERGEJ2011 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It looks to me like someone is using Wikipedia as a soapbox by writing cliffnotes. jps ( talk) 03:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)