This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Moving forward with improvements to folklore-related topics on Wikipedia, I've encountered a bunch of articles and templates using the term paranormal. Outside of fringe circles, things described as paranormal are almost certainly normal, especially to academics who study these topics (such as folklorists who study ghostlore or psychologists who ponder ufology). When I see this word used without attribution, qualification, or, worse yet, in Wikivoice, it raises a bright red flag that I'm scrolling through a problem article. Worse yet, we currently have templates plastered all over pseudoscience articles about how something falls under the category of the paranormal. How is this not a distinct violation of WP:PROFRINGE? How should we go about reigning this in? :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
How about renaming the category, for instance "Category: Paranormal claims"? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Environmental Working Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). From the article you can barely tell that this is an organic lobby front group with a long history of publishing bullshit. Guy ( Help!) 12:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I am being asked on the Talk page: "but who says "Wikipedia regards [Quackwatch] as reliable" other than you?" Could some users who say that please come over and say it? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The regular editors on the talk page repeatedly make the argument that there is a consensus among professionals that race is not a valid biological construct, but rather only an arbitrary social construct. Is this correct?
Richard Lynn 8 (
talk) 13:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
American race denial? I'll stop wasting my time here. — Paleo Neonate – 10:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Struck through Mikemikev sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Crisis actor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
High traffic article especially during mass shootings and bombings. Currently devoted to the non-fringe use of the term, but includes a section on the fringe theory. Should it be split off into two articles? See Talk:Crisis actor#Undue_Weight. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Medical claims for the resin used in Ayurveda. Sourcing looks weak to my eyes; single paper, minor journal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Recently prodded/deprodded, which brought it back to my attention. I left a message on the talk page about PSCI concerns. There are also sourced predictions claims A look at RSN archives about Zee News did not conclusively establish its reliability. I think that one of the links is not news but points to the person's profile at that company where he may be a host (that page seems like a hagiography, the Astro-Guru one). Input/eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 08:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not horrible but is kind of bad. See related Covert hypnosis. Jytdog ( talk) 18:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Please put these on your watchlists, especially the latter. I'm not sure why people who are fans of AAH are so... vehement... but they are and I continue to see subtle rewordings which cast doubt on the stodgy sneerers while praising the valiant few who are convinced humans are uniquely swimmy apes.
There was some discussion at length about vernix caseosa some time back. Since then, Tom Brenna has been publishing more works that are more directly arguing in favor of AAH (but still mostly ignored).
jps ( talk) 19:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Single-author article consisting exclusively of a fringe view. Needs balance from the scientific side. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Lacks proper judgment. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator believes that NARTH should be included in Category:Psychology organizations based in the United States. However, as the article makes clear, the American Psychological Association does not agree. Gay conversion therapy is a religious, not a medical or scientific, practice. It's slightly difficult to discuss this as his response to an attempt at discussion was [4], i.e. a reply in an edit summary deleting the comment. That's... unhelpful. Anyway, seems to me that religiously motivated psychological abuse is not a legitimate inclusion in this category. Guy ( Help!) 10:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This might help [5]. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
That you balk so hard at this straightforward suggestion at getting expert input implies to me that you're just staking a turf war claim. Not surprising, but not in the best interest of Wikipedia, certainly. jps ( talk) 16:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I point to the section Conversion therapy#Australian health organizations and the references therein (disclosure: I wrote it), which include numerous quotations that unambiguously declare conversion therapy as unethical and prohibited by all major medical, psychiatric, and psychological bodies in Australia. I suspect there are plenty of similar statements from reputable bodies in the US to declare that conversion therapy is not a valid or ethical medical or psychological practice. (There certainly are in the UK, I know.) As such, I can't see how NARTH can be categorised as engaging in any legitimate psychological practice. It's also worth remembering that JONAH, a conversion therapy organisation in New York, was successfully prosecuted for offering conversion therapy on the grounds of trade practices law for marketing and selling a product (conversion therapy) that doesn't exist as there is no decent evidence that sexual orientation is changeable. FKC, that makes your assertion that it is actually a form of therapy debatable as a therapy needs to have a demonstrable effect in the direction it claims. The only well-established effects of conversion therapy is the harm done to many (but not all) of those who experience it. At best, conversion therapy is an activity that is unethical if undertaken by anyone with medical or psychological training (and, in some places, illegal) that exists in religious and some extreme groups, conducted by persons untrained in proper psychological practice and doing great harm to many of those who encounter it. EdChem ( talk) 00:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
psychotherapy sʌɪkəʊˈθɛrəpi/Submit noun the treatment of mental disorder by psychological rather than medical means.
So if it is not psychological it is not psychotherapy. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I also removed Category:Sexual orientation and medicine for the same reason. Guy ( Help!) 14:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Considering that the talk page seems dead since my request yesterday, I welcome your input at Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth#Promoting conspiracy theories. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 01:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Starting in 2014 the article Glima, which deals with an Icelandic form of wrestling, has been changed to fit in with a pseudo-historical view on the subject. These views aren't attested to be scholarship but seem rather derived from something called ACADEMY of VIKING MARTIAL ARTS which teaches something they call "Viking wrestling".
I came upon this article earlier this year. It had been marked as problematic since 2014 for the edits I mentioned above. I tried to fix the errors but then, after going through the edit history I saw that it was easiest to simply go back to the 2014 version and build from there. I did that but when I came back there again a few days ago I saw that my changes had been reverted. I had posted my reasons on the talk page but the person who reverted my changes had not answered me. I can't name the user since they don't have an account.
The first changes were made by 84.48.208.98 and the user who undid my revision was 2001:4643:74BE:0:783B:F54B:8DF5:7D03.
I don't really know how to proceed but I do know that the article needs some sort of protection.-- Óli Gneisti ( talk) 12:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Anybody heard of this guy, or is this Not a Notable Person? Alexbrn ( talk) 11:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Richard Deacon (actor) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Are university presses “fringe” publications? [8] Are they “vanity” presses? Just checking. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
"Or vaguely 'straight'? Do you imagine any segment of the public guesses Richard Deacon is gay?" He shook his head. "Not even gays. Most would be surprised. Only because what you see on TV - a serious guy in a suit, unsmiling - isn't how anyone thinks of gay males."Searching "public guesses" should turn it up part of it for you. --23:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Recently @ Kiyoweap: restored a plethora of WP:RS violations and WP:PROFRINGE material I'd removed from Mokele-mbembe. These references include a tremendous amount of unabashedly fringe, including material sourced to Young Earth creationists (William J. Gibbons) and a boatload of cryptozoology quacks, including references to Roy Mackal's notorious A Living Dinosaur?. Prior to the user's restoration of fringe material, I started two threads on the article's talk page. They received no response.
Anyway, article needs some eyes, particularly as this user has a long history of edit-warring in favor pseudoscience on the site (lately, notably where Young Earth creationism and cryptozoology intersect). Pinging editors who frequently work in these corners: @ Tronvillain:, @ LuckyLouie:, and @ Katolophyromai: :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
little over the top").
in favor [of] pseudoscience". If I revert your major purge, it does not translate to my endorsing Gibbons as a source of highest reliablilty. Give me a fricking break.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 21:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
stubifying the article to make way to rewrite the section. Why is it okay for a pending edit drag on for the same number of days for other editors? That's called a double-standard.
"Do not make drive-by visits to WP:FT/N and read a couple of postings on threads and imagine yourself to be able to make a well-considered decision".Furthermore, you have not set foot on the article's talkpage. I have trouble understanding why you didn't answer this, for instance. My advice for the proposed change you outline above would be to finalize it and then post it on talk for discussion. Of course that's not an order; you're free to instead post it as incremental additions directly to the article, giving others time to react before you add more. But IMO the talkpage would be preferable in a case like this, to give a chance for consensus to form while avoiding a lot of back-and-forth on the article itself. Edit summaries are not a discussion forum; that's what the talkpage is for. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC).
"cryptozoology quacks" Bloodofox, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to talk pages, stop writing accusations about BLPs. Quackery specifically refers to "fraudulent or ignorant medical practices", and this in not the case here. Dimadick ( talk) 15:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
anti-evolution propagandaeither. If you know for sure he has done it, put it on the table or just hold your tongue.
pseudoscienceproduced by Mackal? If he brings back the malombo fruit that the pygmies say the creature eats, and has it identified by a botanist, is that pseudoscience under your definition? If you can't get specific on these there is no sense in perpetuating the thread on this notice. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 02:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
antiquated notion" of a sauropod regarding its posture or appearnace or habitat, which Prothero points out. Which you are free to add to the article. But Mackal was not specifically 'searching for sauropods' -- that is only a shorthand or caricature description. Mackal only says he was invetigating a remote possibility of "sauropod dinosaur-like animals surviving" (p. 216)", which could be any unknown or unusual reptile or a mammal. Either only the caricature version is so deeply ingrained in Bloodofox that he cannot escape from it, or he is knowingly misleading us.
being duped by locals". I presume this is from Prothero's reconstructed scenario that the Powell-Mackal expedition was beset by Congolese making up stories where money was to be had.(p. 279ff) I guess Bloodofox's amusement comes from thinking that Powell and Mackal were seriously recording anecdotes and all the while these greedy locals were scamming them, har har har. Sorry, I think of this rather as a chilling stereotyped accusation of African locals as to their morals and belief-systems rather than a pie-in-the-face-of-Mackal comedy entertainment.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 21:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
"Mackal only says he was invetigating a remote possibility of "sauropod dinosaur-like animals surviving" (p. 216)", which could be any unknown or unusual reptile or a mammal." This is hardly the case. The typical description for Sauropoda consists of "long necks, long tails, small heads (relative to the rest of their body), and four thick, pillar-like legs. They are notable for the enormous sizes attained by some species, and the group includes the largest animals to have ever lived on land." The description would not fit the average mammal.
And to clarify what "enormous" means here, Sauroposeidon had an estimated height of 18 metres (59 feet). Dimadick ( talk) 17:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This discussion, starting from "The edit might have been a little over the top", is about improving the article Mokele mbembe. That means it is pretty much what Talk:Mokele mbembe is for. This page, on the other hand, is a noticeboard. The first contribution, ending with "They received no response", belongs here. Should we move all the stuff after that to the Talk page? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Loren Coleman also employs Gibbons as a reliable source and provides a glowing introduction" or "
Mackal's connection to Young Earth creationist and missionary Eugene Thomas, .. who went on to baptize cryptozoologist Gibbonshere. Scientists do not abandon their conviction in evoltionary theory when they come in contact with devout Christians. These are guilt-by-association smear tactics that may belong in mudslinging dirty political ads, not here.
Not this again....-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
hierarchy" is there. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 20:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that cryptozoology absorbs list of cryptids (proposal: Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 5#Merger_proposal). For those you who have followed the notorious latter list know, previous attempts to reign in the WP:PROFRINGE that the list has historically promoted and embraced failed in part due to factors such as off-site lobbying at cryptozoology forums by cryptozoologist and, shall we say, aggressive editing by cryptozoology-sympathetic editors (at times resulting in personal attacks and even threats toward yours truly). Since then, the pseudoscience's connection to topics like Young Earth creationism and other pseudosciences like ufology have become increasingly clear, as the cryptozoology article now reflects. Anyway, there's some serious pseudoscience happening in these corners, and the process definitely needs more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Ouch! That seems a but harsh. Equal coverage of BOTH sides is essential in both encyclopedic content and for this site. It irks me that some people don't seem to understand that we are here to create encyclopedic content. Not taking sides and reporting a single opinion.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Hebrews#Unfounded removal and [16] where he insists that an opinion of Davidovits be included although no reliable sources seem to have noticed it. He's also arguing that this material scientist is an expert on Egyptology which of course he isn't and doesn't even claim to be so far as I know. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Editors here may want to add September 11 attacks, 9/11 Truth movement and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to their watchlist. We have an editor who seems to think that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job by the US government and has been editing (and edit-warring) these articles to give undue weight to these fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Orb (optics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should this article include a “paranormal” section? There is one decent source, however IMO, the old one-way-linking rule for pseudoscience should apply here, i.e. a section in ghost hunting about the pseudoscientific belief should link to Orb (optics), but not the other way around. Curious what others think. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe re-AfD? I see that User:Andy Dingley reverted me on behalf of the claimed results of the previous "merge". jps ( talk) 22:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll get the ball rolling. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (optics). jps ( talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Orb's sister article Rod has a similar set of problems. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 18:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand this motivation to purge Wikipedia of fringe topics, or merge them into generic articles where nobody will find them. Ignoring woo-woo topics is not how Wikipedia educates the world. If I didn't know better, I'd think this was being driven by woo-woo advocates unhappy that skeptical Wikipedia articles are showing up in Google results. ApLundell ( talk) 22:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
After much wringing of hands and really some good collaboration had by all involved, it seems we've come to a redirected conclusion for these orbs.
Now, what should we do with Rod (optics)? I am hoping that it will not need an AfD.
jps ( talk) 17:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This guy Etzel Cardeña is basically a parapsychology crank and his article reads like promotion. He has written a bunch of papers claiming psychokinesis is real, yet there are no third-party reliable sources that have reviewed his work. In 2014 (with Dean Radin and others) he signed a nutty paper (in the notorious Frontiers Media) claiming paranormal research is scientific [21]. As reliable sources are lacking I think his article should be submitted for deletion. 80.189.126.234 ( talk) 09:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
First added by User:IMedscaper and after its removal two IPs on 2 different continents. See my edit summary when I removed it and also Talk:Atlantis#Added "other location" Richat Structure in Mauritania, as related in film by George S. Alexander. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Used to be a redirect to Petrodollar recycling which was recently reverted. There were previous AfDs but without consensus, I think. I'm not sure if this is the best place for it, but eyes welcome. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 02:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm writing this kind of in anticipation because there's not exactly an edit war here but there is concerning material relating to WP:BLP and fringe theories.
Zina Bash is being accused on the Internet by non-notable pundits of making a white supremacist gesture, one that isn't actually a white supremacist gesture but one that was invented by 4chan to make liberals look like over-reacters to banal things. See here from the ADL This is a highly harmful allegation with very little substance to it, you wouldn't mention Pizzagate on the biography of Hillary Clinton, for example.
The point is this is fringe to discuss, just like people who accuse pop stars of having Illuminati symbols in their videos. That shouldn't be mentioned on pop stars' biographies, because it's another conspiracy theory but anonymous people on the Internet. This shouldn't be within a million miles of Bash's biography (unless I am gravely mistaken), but how should it be summed up on the OK (gesture) article?
Expectedly, Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 17:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to draw more eyes to Black Sun (symbol). While this symbol has received little attention outside of Germany to date, it is becoming increasingly visible in alt-right and neo-Nazi circles (particularly in the Trump era U.S. political landscape and evidently even in some official context in Ukraine, see Azov Battalion). The article has historically propped the symbol up as "ancient", yet all indications are that the symbol was produced by a Nazi artist during the Third Reich with the intention to glorify the SS in some manner or another (it only occurs during the era on a floor mosaic at Wewelsburg). I'm working on a rewrite of the article, but in the mean time more eyes would be appreciated. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primary_genetics_studies. Jytdog ( talk) 23:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#zapatopi.net -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Emil Kirkegaard has been editing this article. Problem is that he attended this controversial conference and was involved heavily involved with it. There appears to be little to no criticism in the article, it is not neutrally written in relation to the sources. Mainstream news sources have described the conferences as far-right, eugenicist and racist
[22],
[23],
[24]. These were not conferences promoting mainstream science. The ideas were very much on the lunatic fringe. Kirkegaard has tried to counter-balance this by adding a source written by the attendees who do not like the word "eugenics". The paper is online
[25] - problem with this paper, it was co-written by
Richard Lynn (a white supremacist) and a bunch of other racist kooks (Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Edward Dutton (who is associated with the
Mankind Quarterly) etc.
Rationalwiki has a large run-down of the
speakers at the conferences. Practically every speaker is some sort of kook associated with "race realist" community and controversial views from the far-right, alt-right, white nationalism, racism, eugenics, sexism, homophobia etc. They all seem to hold unorthodox views about "race".
Toby Young attended the latest conference and ended up describing the speakers as "right-wing fruitcakes". Any ideas what should be done with this? I suggest that criticism should be added to the article, there is a false balance. Also see the talk-page for a discussion
[26]
Vihaan Khatri (
talk) 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested. Deleet has a sock-puppet Godotskimp who just filed a case against ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants [27]. Kirkegaard has been advertising people to help him on twitter. He is still editing articles related to race and intelligence. Examples: International Society for Intelligence Research which he spoke at a few months ago. Richard Lynn (a white supremacist who he works for), Nathan Brody etc.
As for the
Intelligence (journal), a number of notable racists are involved with it
[28] - Richard Haier, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Gerhard Meisenberg, Arthur R. Jensen etc.
89.163.221.47 (
talk) 17:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
This is something to be on the look-out for. I've noticed that a number of editors have sought to add content falsely claiming that this or that conservative figure has been "shadow-banned", "censored" or blocked by social media platforms. In most of the cases, the claims of bans and censorship turn out to be false and/or unsubstantiated. As you may be aware of, this is a new talking point among rightwing conservatives, so we can expect more bad edits along these lines. I've encountered this type of fringe content on Diamond and Silk, Ronna McDaniel, PragerU and Shadow banning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone is interested in this, but it gives too much credence to "the claim of a Megalithic era discovery of axial precession, and the encoding of this knowledge in mythology."
It also for some reason leaves out the importance of numbers to the author. Jason Colavito wrote on this recently [31] saying "Hamlet’s Mill, published in 1969, is one of the foundational texts of the “alternative archaeology” movement because its writers mined global mythology to hunt out factors and multiples of 72 in order to claim that such numbers proved that world myths all encoded scientific data from a lost civilization about the precession of the equinoxes, in which the stars rotate backwards through the zodiac by one degree every 71.6 years, roughly 72 years to the nearest integer. Thus, numbers like 12, 36, 72, 432, 36,000, etc. all become important “precessional numbers” suggesting remnants of this lost science."
See also its use at Astrological age. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
RF resonant cavity thruster currently says:
References
Note the Results in Physics (journal) is a redlink. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/results-in-physics has more information.
[ https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/21/elsevier-retracting-26-papers-accepted-fake-reviews/#more-53130 ] has some rather interesting information about Results in Physics as well.
And we have [ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Isaac_Dinaharan ], where a researcher says
The relevant passage in the Yin Zhu PDF cited is:
(18) are useful for the observation.
Ref 32 in the Yin Zhu PDF is Yin Zhu citing Yin Zhu:
[ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313315115_A_Design_of_GemDrive ] (PDF version: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yin_Zhu2/publication/313315115_A_Design_of_GemDrive/links/5895a8064585158bf6ede6d0/A-Design-of-GemDrive.pdf)
Which is "A Design of GemDrive" published in "Experiment Findings" by "Yin Zhu, Agriculture Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China".
Odd I thought that schools had Agriculture Departments. Who knew that provinces had them as well?
[ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yin_Zhu2 ] tells us Yin Zhu's position at the Agriculture Department. "Manager".
BTW This contradicts [ https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=56172534300 ], which says that Yin Zhu is with the Fire Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China.
I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This just in: an expert on the subject of conspiracy theories says creationism is wrong, man-made global warming is real, and the US government wasn't involved in the the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps this will clear things up: [33] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the Salem Hypothesis, see Engineers and terrorists and Engineers and terrorists, part 2 and Why do so many terrorists have engineering degrees? for some interesting theories. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
These edits added a couple of categories which I am rather dubious about. I have to doubt whether Summit University is a real "university", or whether Summit University Press is anything other than self-publishing which doesn't really merit calling her a publisher. Opinions? Mangoe ( talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"a spiritual organization based on the teachings of the ascended masters"
Is there a connection with "I AM" Activity, the new religious movement from the 1930s? Dimadick ( talk) 10:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Could use more eyes. Specifically, does the claim from and about the society not engaging in policy belong? Doug Weller talk 17:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Been discussed lots here.
Due to some recent likely socking, I looked at both of these carefully and revised both extensively, trying to raise source quality. Please have a look... Jytdog ( talk) 01:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Nash-Fortenberry UFO sighting ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seems not so well-cited compared to other famous incidents. Is it notable enough?
jps ( talk) 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I have NO DOUBT that Time Life books focused on this particular incident. I've read that (what can most charitably be called) grey literature. The authors of that series haven't met a first-hand account they haven't loved -- these are the intellectual ancestors of the producers active on the History Channel these days. The problem is that while some UFO incidents have been the focus of serious WP:MAINSTREAM consideration for their cultural importance (think Roswell, Barney & Betty Hill, or Jimmy Carter), the vast majority of them are your fifteen-minutes-of-fame types of tales. Incidentally, the reason Project Blue Book was shut down (or, at least, shunted off from public view) was because the sensationalism of these accounts made it nearly impossible to use most of them as anything but campfire stories. Even what believers hail as their "most incredible" incidents have "evidence" of such low quality that we're just left shrugging. All this is to say, we need sources better than Time Life Books. jps ( talk) 11:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Manuel da Silva Rosa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - newest edit is just puffery, eg mentioning an IT contract he once had, suggesting he doesn't work for Duke (which he still does so far as I can tell), etc. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed an IP removing an "unreliable sources" tag from this article, which has a number of UFO sites as sources as well as "From flight plot by Bruce Maccabee" whatever that is (there's an article used as a source by this author but with a different name). Doug Weller talk 08:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
There is ongoing major editing that will require auditing. I've removed a book promotion url earlier which was reinserted and I won't be able to check it again until tomorrow. There may also be a copyright violation (a huge quote transcripted from a youtube video I think). Likely undue weight to fringe claims as well. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 08:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, on further consideration, I think it probably doesn't belong in our encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. jps ( talk) 12:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Another article of this type is creationist cosmologies. How I've tried to get that one to go away. :-/ jps ( talk) 01:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The traditional theology of the Sunni community teaches that Allah is above all one, unique, transcendent, creator, distinct from creation, eternal and permanent, and worthy of worship. Allah has, according to Sunnis, seven essential attributes: life, power, knowledge, will, hearing, sight, and speech. Of these attributes, power means absolute omnipotence, while knowledge, hearing, and sight indicate omniscience. Omnipresence is not stressed to avoid confusing Allah with His creation. Some of the more mystical trends in Islam have emphasized His nearness and presence everywhere (Qur'an 50:16; 57:4), causing others to accuse such mystics of pantheism. The traditional Sunni position explains verses referring to Allah's nearness as meaning He is everywhere near in His knowledge (6:59, etc.), not that He is immanent in His creation.
.
Someone is recently adding material to related articles asserting that FMS was pseudoscience and conspiracy theory to justify sexual abuse. I've not reviewed the literature but I remember reading about it years ago and there were trials which demonstrated personnel incompetence, including using questionable therapies like suggestive hypnotherapy (pseudoscience itself), which would have caused vulnerable people to claim (or admit under possibly coercive circumstances) they were abused, causing a type of moral panic at the time. — Paleo Neonate – 06:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
More suspicious articles:
-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be something of a walled garden. I think we could usefully start by redirecting false memory syndrome to false memory, since the two are the same. Peter J. Freyd could also be merged to False Memory Syndrome Foundation as the "biography" is basically about his founding of that group. The biography was started by a Bonaparte sock. Guy ( Help!) 07:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Someone has added "new information" to the Mantell UFO incident article. It's a NICAP report from a ufologist named Francis Ridge, who claims to have "proven" that the object Mantell spotted couldn't have been a balloon, and essentially argues that the case is still unsolved. Someone has also removed Philip Klass's finding that weather balloons were launched in Ohio on the day of the Mantell incident. Just thought I'd mention it here in case someone wants to check and see if it looks like a credible addition. 70.145.229.162 ( talk) 22:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Zachary King ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So much wrong with this article about a "former satanist". Considered just nominating it for deletion, perhaps somebody here can cut it to a policy-compliant version without removing all of the references. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Wait, there's a Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Satanism? -- Calton | Talk 09:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
New editors who do not edit elsewhere, one of which has been independently identified as a sock of Mikimikev ( User:Doctor Nimrod, renamed account, commented at Talk:Eugenics#No_true_scotsman as User:Richard Lynn 8.
The sole goal seems to promote eugenics as science, despite long-standing consensus. This is very disruptive and prohibits discussing any of the real issues, and has totally stalled any improvement of the article. Carl Fredrik talk 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
A deletion discussion of interest to this board regarding this category is now going on. -- Calton | Talk 09:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Another editor is claiming that this ref constitutes a fringe theory. I am uncertain how a British politics professor writing about British politics in the London Review of Books could possibly constitute a fringe theory; which seems patently absurd to me but I thought it best to bring it here and get some other perspectives. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The Truth Is out There... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The Sunspot Solar Observatory has been closed for more than a week. Authorities remain tightlipped Friday, saying only that an undisclosed security concern was behind the decision to abruptly vacate and lock up the remote facility on Sept 6.Yeah, the NY Times only has this to say, and none of the other sources give any more information than that, just quotes from various people who have no idea what's going on. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 16:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Sunspot Solar Observatory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Groan... this was mentioned on the Today Programme (UK, BBC Radio 4) this morning. Just a short passing mention, but implying that there was some sort of mystery and jokingly referring to the proximity to Roswell. They really ought to know better... GirthSummit (blether) 10:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
https://www.abqjournal.com/1222935/sunspot-observatory-closure-sparked-by-child-porn-investigation.html -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
See RF resonant cavity thruster#Hypotheses.
This section has become a collection of pseudoscientific theories. I propose renaming it "possible sources of errors", keeping the "Noise or experimental error" material, and nuking the sections on "Radiation pressure", "Vacuum energy", "Quantized inertia", "Photon leakage", "Mach effect", and "Warp field".
Comments? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone object to the transclusion of WP:SKEPTIC article alerts ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Article alerts) at the top of this noticeboard? Since the WikiProject is tightly related to this noticeboard, those alerts are relevant to fringe topics. It also could be collapsed by default in a box if its size is a concern... This is unnecessary if most regulars here already transclude or watch it, of course, but I have no idea if that's the case, or if most even know about it, or find it useful. Bot updates to the alerts page would not cause spurious related-changes/watchlist entries, since it would be transcluded. — Paleo Neonate – 00:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Some questionable editing here recently by IPs trying to promote the diet as fact. This article has come up before on this noticeboard here and here. Tera TIX 00:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Nonchalant77 ( talk · contribs) could use some advice on how to edit these articles and the sorts of sources that can be used, eg the journal used here. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I've been checking the histories of Scientology-related articles, and I've noticed that several accounts, all without a user page, have been trying to tilt Scientology-related articles towards one side. Nonchalant77 ( talk · contribs) is one of them: an example of a NPOV-violating edit they made is: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=792456261. Granted, that was over a year ago. But his editing, in general, has been largely around softening Scientology's image.
Similar SPA accounts are: Idyllweiss ( talk · contribs), who hasn't edited since December 2017, also made a painfully non-neutral edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scientology_and_celebrities&diff=prev&oldid=758310837. Another account is Totempoles007 ( talk · contribs), who made a non-NPOV edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Delphian_School&diff=prev&oldid=850599282.
Another example of a SPA account is: Wordsculptor2018 ( talk · contribs), their edits are largely around softening David Miscavige's article - adding that he got a medal from the Colombian Police in this edit, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Miscavige&diff=851193834&oldid=851068322.
I apologise if there isn't enough evidence to support my claim, but I fear that /info/en/?search=Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia may be happening again - only from proxies or such. Lolifan ( talk) 19:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I noticed this article because someone tagged it with the WP:SKEPTIC tag. The article itself has a few issues tags. When reading it partly, I noticed that it diverged for unclear reasons including a claim about IQ inheritance. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 16:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
As discussed Talk:Planck length#Planck Length edit by user:EntropyFormula an editor has repeatedly inserted a section based on a fringe-looking paper with only nine cites in Google scholar (and all those cites are self-citations). [47] The editor has declined to say if he has a WP:COI in the matter. Eyes needed here. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC).
I have just created a section regarding conspiracy theories at the Tim Anderson (political_economist) article. [48] He is notable for two overturned convictions in relation to terrorist bombings/bomb_plots, and later for publishing wild conspiracy theories (on kooky conspiracy theory sites) that various governments, international organisations, academic institutions, and pretty much every WP:RS on the planet were all conspiring to falsify and fabricate evidence surrounding the Syrian Civil war. And by the way, they are also all conspiring to censor him when personally when the word dismisses his claims. I also created a section on the Article_talk so any issues can be discussed there.
I invite other editors to examine my work and to expand, correct, or otherwise improve any content in that section or elsewhere in the article. I also invite other editors to watchlist the page, as I believe the article has a highly suspicious editing history for [reasons in part relating to off-wiki info that shouldn't explain here and now]. If other editors have concerns with the past or near-future editing of the article: I request you wait and consult with me before initiating administrative investigation or action, again for [reasons in part relating to off-wiki info that shouldn't explain here and now]. Alsee ( talk) 14:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the topic of interests section uses blogs and in-universe/apologetic sources for a list of definitions. I'm not sure that such a section is needed anyway, or it also could simply list article/wikilinks about topics mentioned in a common source about the Novella's interests, without alternative definitions. More opinions/eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 16:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Wanted to see if we could get a consensus to label the views of the American College of Pediatricians regarding conversion therapy and LGBT parenting as fringe. As their Wikipedia article makes pretty clear, their views appear to be politically and not scientifically based. Afaict, this hasn't been addressed before ( FTN archive search). They appear to be a splinter group of about 500 members that split off from the 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatrics, for the purpose of advocating against same-sex marriage and gay parenting.
The ACP stands alone against dozens of professional medical organizations on these topics, and from what I can glean, their views on a number of topics seem clearly fringe. More on the ACP from Psychology Today [1] the AAoP, [2] HRC, [3] and the APA. [4] Mathglot ( talk) 18:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Alsee: Yes, it's more about referencing them in another article, albeit possibly indirectly. Background: dozens of professional medical associations all agree and have position statements about about some lgbt-related things (value of conversion therapy, effects of LGBT parenting, etc.) with the exception of ACP, which appears to stand alone against prevailing opinion. Would we be justified stating the majority opinion in Wikipedia's voice, sourcing solely the majority references without mentioning that opposing opinion exists if it is medically fringe? For example, could we say that "the idea that children are better off when raised by opposite-sex couples is scientifically refuted" (or, "unanimously opposed by professional medical associations") sourcing only PT and HRC or other majority opinion sources, while saying nothing about ACP because they are fringe? Currently, I feel we have to mention their opposition, or at least avoid the word "unanimous" or "refuted", but if there is consensus here that they are medically fringe, I'd happily go along with that and call it unanimous or state the conclusion in Wikipedia's voice.
There is an ongoing Rfc about a case of citation overkill that probably arose because of a conflict in how to address the fringe position of ACP. The disputed article content is at Same-sex marriage#Opposition and the Rfc about the citation overkill situation is here, with a side discussion about the FRINGE aspects here, starting about half-way down. Mathglot ( talk) 20:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
As was pointed out and made clear
here and
here, the
American College of Pediatricians is not a professional association, it is a fringe advocacy group which has been listed as a hate group by the
Southern Poverty Law Center. Its deceptive name is intended to get non-discerning readers and unwitting non-professionals to confuse it with the
American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the professional association of pediatricians. Scientific researchers, including the director of the
National Institutes of Health, have stated that the ACP has misused or mischaracterized their work in order to advance the ACP's political agenda. Per
WP:FALSEBALANCE, which states, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity [...] we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it
", the agenda-driven views of a fringe advocacy group should be entirely disregarded and only the science-driven positions of professional associations should be presented in this medical/scientific matter. --
Justthefacts9 (
talk) 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Some of the stated reasons the group has given for opposing adoption by same-sex couples are certainly pseudoscientific and fringe. It's more than reasonable to couch those as pseudoscientific per Wikipedia guidelines. To say that the pseudoscientific views are not worth mentioning at all is a possible interpretation, but if they have garnered outside attention from relevant experts who have identified these positions as pseudoscientific, such criticism can be mentioned in the article. Are there sources we can identify which do this? jps ( talk) 12:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
A side-issue concerning this: there’s a disagreement at the talk page whether ACP may be referred to as a “professional association [of pediatricians]”. It seems clear they’re a political advocacy ggroup, there’s no argument there. But given that they are an association whose members are pediatricians, are they not also a “professional association”? The point here is whether one can say that “all professional associations say X (about gay issue Y)”. Mathglot ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Duane Gish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Resident creationists seem to think that as long as we attribute gushing praise of Duane Gish to Henry M. Morris, it's perfectly fine. I think it's WP:COAT. Whaddya think?
Anyway, more eyes, as usual, appreciated.
jps ( talk) 17:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Why does Category:Satanic ritual abuse in the United States even exist when only the subcat is needed? See Category talk:Satanic ritual abuse in the United States. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Needs some cleanup generally, if anyone can improve on what I just added about "The University of America" it would also be appreciated. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Smth is happening with this page again. May be the edits are fine, but I am not competent in this subject, and more eyes are welcome. In the past, it often became a garden for Rife adepts and/or conspiracy theorists.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Recently, however, the company Novobiotronics has taken up similar research with a measurable level of success demonstrated at Ted conferences and other public venues.
Miracle of the Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Persistent removal of criticism, ongoing: [50]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI
Jytdog (
talk) 20:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Needs eyes, some NPOV wording, dubious sourcing. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
A while back I ran into a conspiracy theory that claims that all of the other conspiracy theories were generated by (the government? the Illuminati? The Reptilians? I don't remember) in order to get us to dismiss conspiracy theories, thus paving the way for the real conspiracy. I just searched and couldn't find it -- clearly because Google is in on it. :) Does anyone know where I can find such a thing? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The article Rudraksha, particularly the "Uses of Rudraksha" section, appears to be full of pseudoscientific content regarding "electromagnetic power" and healing properties of these seeds. Can someone take a look? Deli nk ( talk) 12:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Is this notable? It seems to have won an award that I don't think we'd usually mention. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Parapsychologist with crank ideas about psychokinesis being real. Several skeptic sources were removed from the article. Have restored last good old version with the skeptic sources included and without the publication promotion (citing loads of Roll's paranormal papers is not needed on the article) but have been reverted. 82.132.231.71 ( talk) 11:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently a psychologist somewhere said that Psi is totally as real as other psychological phenomena; what Replication Crisis pretty much in hand as it stands but it's always good to make sure people are aware. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Problems are spreadying to Paranormal. [56] jps ( talk) 00:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Related: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
A while back I moved parapsychology from "Basic psychology" to "See also" on Outline of psychology (next to neurolinguistic programming). It was just moved to "other areas by topic", which might be justified, but I'm not entirely convinced parapsychology is really a part of psychology these days - might be worth a look. -- tronvillain ( talk) 12:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
So I've noticed for a while now that there has been a massive purge of articles from WikiProject Cryptozoology and everything related to it. Now I know that it seems around here that simply ADDING an article to the project or categories related to it seems to be a soft point for some people around here. I am not trying to start an argument but why is it that this needs to happen. Why can they not be a part of BOTH Folklore and Cryptozoology (in most cases this is correct). Adding it to the crypto category is not an avocation that the subject is real or not, it only acknowledges that it has been classified as a cryptid by some Cryptozoologists or has reports of something similar in real life. Cryptozoology is the study of animals that have yet to be verified of their existence, it may not be a legitimate science but completely ignoring reports/info on this seems very much like POV Pushing although I may be wrong. Now I'm not here to advocate for certain sides here, but it seems to me that people have forgotten/misread the guidelines of Wikipiedia around this subject. It NEVER says to ignore fringe theories all together or not show them (after all we are just an encyclopedia-type site), so completely ignoring or purging such topics seems s bit extreme an action. True, the source needs to be legitimate and I'm all for that (been an advocate for reliable sources since day 1), there should be no references from blogs on unlegitimate sites since THAT is in violation of Wikipiedia's policy. Books on the subject are very helpful and it would be a shame not to take advantage of the information they yield. I just want to know what people here think of that idea.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 21:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
made up crap. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Wording things a bit nicer when talking to people will go a long way BloodofFox. Although I do agree (partially) on your point. There has been kind of a tenancy to add every single source one finds, which is not helpful in establishing the legitimacy of the WikiProject. I tend to find that the "academic" sources really don't have an extensive research on the subject since they usually don't feel it's in line with what they feel is a real science (technically its not) and any info to come from it they discount. I'm still wondering if Dr. Greg Meldrum (an anthropologist) would be a good enough source for Sasquatch info...-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
And everywhere else...-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't want this to turn into a big long argument with people insulting differences in opinions. I've had enough of that dealing with with BoF. I just want to clarify the parameters of sources since it's been severely limited by the Fringe and Profringe people. All of that aside, I find that it IS an issue finding only academic sources for Cryptozoology articles since there are so few and some that are get classified as Fringe (something that happens quite a bit). It just makes the expansion of such articles extremely frustrating when you have such a limited amount of what the Fringe and Profringe people accept as good enough sources.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm only trying to reach an agreement since I was told by someone experienced with these kind of antics that it was more POV pushing than anything else. Can't say I din't try though (sighs).-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"Perhaps consider a Wikia option?" Another one? Wikia already includes Cryptid Wiki, CryptoWiki, and New Cryptozoology Tarmola Wiki. Dimadick ( talk) 09:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Those alternates have a tendency to not cite sources and are poorly structured. I just feel that, by saying ONLY academic sources are allowed, it severely restricts the amount of expansion we can give to those articles since there is just not a lot of academic sources out there on the individuals. There's more on cryptozoology as a whole, mostly detractors, but that's pretty much it. Not at all ideal when one wants to expand those articles to their fullest extent. I still haven't received any satisfactory explanation for the mass removal of the crypto wikiproject banner and categories from articles. All I've gotten is that, since sources doesn't mention the specific word "Cryptid" it doesn't count. Looking at these sources, some say "purported" or "mysterious", and since cryptozoology is the study of the purported and mysterious I think it fits. All I ask is why does it have to be that specific in terms of wording?-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Fringe should not be used as a bludgeon to disallow anything that is not "accepted knowledge". Slatersteven ( talk) 18:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I do agree. The scarce academic sources on individual cryptids in general is VERY few, and those that exist almost seem evasive or discounting. As an encyclopedia we must strive to create the very best articles on those subject that his humanly possible. If not enough academic sources are available we should not discount other possible sources. With that in mind I've seen it all too often that pieces of information that come from a good source that gives both pieces of information on both sides (often analysis, but also purported sightings from news outlets). A very good example of this being the research by primatologist Dr. Jeff Meldrum on Bigfoot using his background on Primates and hence an academic source. Now I'm not pushing for outright legitimization as some people claim that I am, nor am I wanting to make it as one person termed "a compendium of arcana", I am merely pointing out that in order to be an encyclopedia we must establish that animals such as the Giant Panda, Komodo Dragon, and Mountain Gorilla were once classified as Cryptids, as is any animal that is claimed to exist but so far hasn't been proven. We should outright say "oh, this is real" but state that it's purported to exist, that way we are keeping to Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards by not legitimizing the pseudoscience. I would like to see the academic theories on the various cryptids as well as the disagreements on those theories if they are from legitimate sources but that might be pushing it. Although I'm not entirely sure considering we have FA class articles on the theories behind the mysterious deaths of well known people. that seems to be more like a conspiracy theory to me. As for Extraterrestials/UFOs, I've never been a believer in that stuff and there are even fewer academic sources on THAT than there are on Cryptozoology. I would consider those topics THEORIES and little else.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 21:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Never heard that source existed so I wouldn't have used it anyways. The giant panda, the komodo dragon, and the mountain gorilla weren't specifically called "cryptid" but that doesn't mean that the word needs to be explicitly stated. Seems to me that's a common error some make.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
That's all I need to know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleface Jack ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Although I don't appreciate the sas though...-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 00:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Just realized something. Since Wikipiedia is a Reference/Encyclopedia site, shouldn't we be including both sides of the "Cryptid debate"? I was just wondering because, even though it's classified under "Fringe Theories" this site is more reference-based rather than conspiracy theory based. What I'm meaning by this is that, in terms of literary sources to include as references for this topic, we should consider adding as much literary sources a possible (with some regulation on that of course). Just a thought but I thought that it would be worth mentioning here. In terms of websites, I'm very hesitant with using non-acedemic/news references for this topic since they are not verifiably truthful.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Ferkijel ( talk) 14:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) I believe the blanket answer to this question is that these arguments (including this so called "cryptid debate") all fall under logical fallacies/arguments from ignorance. The very first sentence in this talk says that "Cryptozoology is the study of animals that have yet to be verified of their existence", and that by itself characterises the topic as a fringe theory. As per Wikipedia principles (in particular the principle of neutral point of view), the community shouldn't give fringe theories undue weight. [1] [2]
References
Some may remember User creating articles on countless Theosophy books and Theosophy_and_science. The user's articles (essays) could probably still use some more eyes - I've put a couple up for deletion and have one up now, but there are probably more that should be nominated or significantly altered. --14:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronvillain ( talk • contribs)
While researching something unrelated (methods for quantifying collagen production in vitro) I came across a useful-looking article published in Elsevier's Journal of Ginseng Research, which sounds sketchy, so I wanted to look into its reliability. Surprisingly, it's not only given an impact factor by JCR (the usual up-or-down criterion for notability per WP:NJOURNAL 1c), but is included in NCBI's PMC database. A recent review of biomedical ginseng research in Molecules found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the JGR had published more articles on ginseng research than any other journal.
Is that good enough for me to write an article for it, or is the fact that it's organized around research on a traditional medicinal enough that people here would presume it falls under FRINGE? FourViolas ( talk) 14:15, 24 October 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. |
Moving forward with improvements to folklore-related topics on Wikipedia, I've encountered a bunch of articles and templates using the term paranormal. Outside of fringe circles, things described as paranormal are almost certainly normal, especially to academics who study these topics (such as folklorists who study ghostlore or psychologists who ponder ufology). When I see this word used without attribution, qualification, or, worse yet, in Wikivoice, it raises a bright red flag that I'm scrolling through a problem article. Worse yet, we currently have templates plastered all over pseudoscience articles about how something falls under the category of the paranormal. How is this not a distinct violation of WP:PROFRINGE? How should we go about reigning this in? :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
How about renaming the category, for instance "Category: Paranormal claims"? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Environmental Working Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). From the article you can barely tell that this is an organic lobby front group with a long history of publishing bullshit. Guy ( Help!) 12:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I am being asked on the Talk page: "but who says "Wikipedia regards [Quackwatch] as reliable" other than you?" Could some users who say that please come over and say it? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The regular editors on the talk page repeatedly make the argument that there is a consensus among professionals that race is not a valid biological construct, but rather only an arbitrary social construct. Is this correct?
Richard Lynn 8 (
talk) 13:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
American race denial? I'll stop wasting my time here. — Paleo Neonate – 10:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Struck through Mikemikev sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Crisis actor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
High traffic article especially during mass shootings and bombings. Currently devoted to the non-fringe use of the term, but includes a section on the fringe theory. Should it be split off into two articles? See Talk:Crisis actor#Undue_Weight. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Medical claims for the resin used in Ayurveda. Sourcing looks weak to my eyes; single paper, minor journal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Recently prodded/deprodded, which brought it back to my attention. I left a message on the talk page about PSCI concerns. There are also sourced predictions claims A look at RSN archives about Zee News did not conclusively establish its reliability. I think that one of the links is not news but points to the person's profile at that company where he may be a host (that page seems like a hagiography, the Astro-Guru one). Input/eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 08:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not horrible but is kind of bad. See related Covert hypnosis. Jytdog ( talk) 18:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Please put these on your watchlists, especially the latter. I'm not sure why people who are fans of AAH are so... vehement... but they are and I continue to see subtle rewordings which cast doubt on the stodgy sneerers while praising the valiant few who are convinced humans are uniquely swimmy apes.
There was some discussion at length about vernix caseosa some time back. Since then, Tom Brenna has been publishing more works that are more directly arguing in favor of AAH (but still mostly ignored).
jps ( talk) 19:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Single-author article consisting exclusively of a fringe view. Needs balance from the scientific side. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Lacks proper judgment. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator believes that NARTH should be included in Category:Psychology organizations based in the United States. However, as the article makes clear, the American Psychological Association does not agree. Gay conversion therapy is a religious, not a medical or scientific, practice. It's slightly difficult to discuss this as his response to an attempt at discussion was [4], i.e. a reply in an edit summary deleting the comment. That's... unhelpful. Anyway, seems to me that religiously motivated psychological abuse is not a legitimate inclusion in this category. Guy ( Help!) 10:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This might help [5]. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
That you balk so hard at this straightforward suggestion at getting expert input implies to me that you're just staking a turf war claim. Not surprising, but not in the best interest of Wikipedia, certainly. jps ( talk) 16:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I point to the section Conversion therapy#Australian health organizations and the references therein (disclosure: I wrote it), which include numerous quotations that unambiguously declare conversion therapy as unethical and prohibited by all major medical, psychiatric, and psychological bodies in Australia. I suspect there are plenty of similar statements from reputable bodies in the US to declare that conversion therapy is not a valid or ethical medical or psychological practice. (There certainly are in the UK, I know.) As such, I can't see how NARTH can be categorised as engaging in any legitimate psychological practice. It's also worth remembering that JONAH, a conversion therapy organisation in New York, was successfully prosecuted for offering conversion therapy on the grounds of trade practices law for marketing and selling a product (conversion therapy) that doesn't exist as there is no decent evidence that sexual orientation is changeable. FKC, that makes your assertion that it is actually a form of therapy debatable as a therapy needs to have a demonstrable effect in the direction it claims. The only well-established effects of conversion therapy is the harm done to many (but not all) of those who experience it. At best, conversion therapy is an activity that is unethical if undertaken by anyone with medical or psychological training (and, in some places, illegal) that exists in religious and some extreme groups, conducted by persons untrained in proper psychological practice and doing great harm to many of those who encounter it. EdChem ( talk) 00:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
psychotherapy sʌɪkəʊˈθɛrəpi/Submit noun the treatment of mental disorder by psychological rather than medical means.
So if it is not psychological it is not psychotherapy. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I also removed Category:Sexual orientation and medicine for the same reason. Guy ( Help!) 14:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Considering that the talk page seems dead since my request yesterday, I welcome your input at Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth#Promoting conspiracy theories. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 01:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Starting in 2014 the article Glima, which deals with an Icelandic form of wrestling, has been changed to fit in with a pseudo-historical view on the subject. These views aren't attested to be scholarship but seem rather derived from something called ACADEMY of VIKING MARTIAL ARTS which teaches something they call "Viking wrestling".
I came upon this article earlier this year. It had been marked as problematic since 2014 for the edits I mentioned above. I tried to fix the errors but then, after going through the edit history I saw that it was easiest to simply go back to the 2014 version and build from there. I did that but when I came back there again a few days ago I saw that my changes had been reverted. I had posted my reasons on the talk page but the person who reverted my changes had not answered me. I can't name the user since they don't have an account.
The first changes were made by 84.48.208.98 and the user who undid my revision was 2001:4643:74BE:0:783B:F54B:8DF5:7D03.
I don't really know how to proceed but I do know that the article needs some sort of protection.-- Óli Gneisti ( talk) 12:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Anybody heard of this guy, or is this Not a Notable Person? Alexbrn ( talk) 11:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Richard Deacon (actor) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Are university presses “fringe” publications? [8] Are they “vanity” presses? Just checking. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
"Or vaguely 'straight'? Do you imagine any segment of the public guesses Richard Deacon is gay?" He shook his head. "Not even gays. Most would be surprised. Only because what you see on TV - a serious guy in a suit, unsmiling - isn't how anyone thinks of gay males."Searching "public guesses" should turn it up part of it for you. --23:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Recently @ Kiyoweap: restored a plethora of WP:RS violations and WP:PROFRINGE material I'd removed from Mokele-mbembe. These references include a tremendous amount of unabashedly fringe, including material sourced to Young Earth creationists (William J. Gibbons) and a boatload of cryptozoology quacks, including references to Roy Mackal's notorious A Living Dinosaur?. Prior to the user's restoration of fringe material, I started two threads on the article's talk page. They received no response.
Anyway, article needs some eyes, particularly as this user has a long history of edit-warring in favor pseudoscience on the site (lately, notably where Young Earth creationism and cryptozoology intersect). Pinging editors who frequently work in these corners: @ Tronvillain:, @ LuckyLouie:, and @ Katolophyromai: :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
little over the top").
in favor [of] pseudoscience". If I revert your major purge, it does not translate to my endorsing Gibbons as a source of highest reliablilty. Give me a fricking break.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 21:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
stubifying the article to make way to rewrite the section. Why is it okay for a pending edit drag on for the same number of days for other editors? That's called a double-standard.
"Do not make drive-by visits to WP:FT/N and read a couple of postings on threads and imagine yourself to be able to make a well-considered decision".Furthermore, you have not set foot on the article's talkpage. I have trouble understanding why you didn't answer this, for instance. My advice for the proposed change you outline above would be to finalize it and then post it on talk for discussion. Of course that's not an order; you're free to instead post it as incremental additions directly to the article, giving others time to react before you add more. But IMO the talkpage would be preferable in a case like this, to give a chance for consensus to form while avoiding a lot of back-and-forth on the article itself. Edit summaries are not a discussion forum; that's what the talkpage is for. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC).
"cryptozoology quacks" Bloodofox, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to talk pages, stop writing accusations about BLPs. Quackery specifically refers to "fraudulent or ignorant medical practices", and this in not the case here. Dimadick ( talk) 15:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
anti-evolution propagandaeither. If you know for sure he has done it, put it on the table or just hold your tongue.
pseudoscienceproduced by Mackal? If he brings back the malombo fruit that the pygmies say the creature eats, and has it identified by a botanist, is that pseudoscience under your definition? If you can't get specific on these there is no sense in perpetuating the thread on this notice. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 02:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
antiquated notion" of a sauropod regarding its posture or appearnace or habitat, which Prothero points out. Which you are free to add to the article. But Mackal was not specifically 'searching for sauropods' -- that is only a shorthand or caricature description. Mackal only says he was invetigating a remote possibility of "sauropod dinosaur-like animals surviving" (p. 216)", which could be any unknown or unusual reptile or a mammal. Either only the caricature version is so deeply ingrained in Bloodofox that he cannot escape from it, or he is knowingly misleading us.
being duped by locals". I presume this is from Prothero's reconstructed scenario that the Powell-Mackal expedition was beset by Congolese making up stories where money was to be had.(p. 279ff) I guess Bloodofox's amusement comes from thinking that Powell and Mackal were seriously recording anecdotes and all the while these greedy locals were scamming them, har har har. Sorry, I think of this rather as a chilling stereotyped accusation of African locals as to their morals and belief-systems rather than a pie-in-the-face-of-Mackal comedy entertainment.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 21:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
"Mackal only says he was invetigating a remote possibility of "sauropod dinosaur-like animals surviving" (p. 216)", which could be any unknown or unusual reptile or a mammal." This is hardly the case. The typical description for Sauropoda consists of "long necks, long tails, small heads (relative to the rest of their body), and four thick, pillar-like legs. They are notable for the enormous sizes attained by some species, and the group includes the largest animals to have ever lived on land." The description would not fit the average mammal.
And to clarify what "enormous" means here, Sauroposeidon had an estimated height of 18 metres (59 feet). Dimadick ( talk) 17:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This discussion, starting from "The edit might have been a little over the top", is about improving the article Mokele mbembe. That means it is pretty much what Talk:Mokele mbembe is for. This page, on the other hand, is a noticeboard. The first contribution, ending with "They received no response", belongs here. Should we move all the stuff after that to the Talk page? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Loren Coleman also employs Gibbons as a reliable source and provides a glowing introduction" or "
Mackal's connection to Young Earth creationist and missionary Eugene Thomas, .. who went on to baptize cryptozoologist Gibbonshere. Scientists do not abandon their conviction in evoltionary theory when they come in contact with devout Christians. These are guilt-by-association smear tactics that may belong in mudslinging dirty political ads, not here.
Not this again....-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
hierarchy" is there. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 20:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that cryptozoology absorbs list of cryptids (proposal: Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 5#Merger_proposal). For those you who have followed the notorious latter list know, previous attempts to reign in the WP:PROFRINGE that the list has historically promoted and embraced failed in part due to factors such as off-site lobbying at cryptozoology forums by cryptozoologist and, shall we say, aggressive editing by cryptozoology-sympathetic editors (at times resulting in personal attacks and even threats toward yours truly). Since then, the pseudoscience's connection to topics like Young Earth creationism and other pseudosciences like ufology have become increasingly clear, as the cryptozoology article now reflects. Anyway, there's some serious pseudoscience happening in these corners, and the process definitely needs more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Ouch! That seems a but harsh. Equal coverage of BOTH sides is essential in both encyclopedic content and for this site. It irks me that some people don't seem to understand that we are here to create encyclopedic content. Not taking sides and reporting a single opinion.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Hebrews#Unfounded removal and [16] where he insists that an opinion of Davidovits be included although no reliable sources seem to have noticed it. He's also arguing that this material scientist is an expert on Egyptology which of course he isn't and doesn't even claim to be so far as I know. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Editors here may want to add September 11 attacks, 9/11 Truth movement and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to their watchlist. We have an editor who seems to think that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job by the US government and has been editing (and edit-warring) these articles to give undue weight to these fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Orb (optics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should this article include a “paranormal” section? There is one decent source, however IMO, the old one-way-linking rule for pseudoscience should apply here, i.e. a section in ghost hunting about the pseudoscientific belief should link to Orb (optics), but not the other way around. Curious what others think. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe re-AfD? I see that User:Andy Dingley reverted me on behalf of the claimed results of the previous "merge". jps ( talk) 22:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll get the ball rolling. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (optics). jps ( talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Orb's sister article Rod has a similar set of problems. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 18:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand this motivation to purge Wikipedia of fringe topics, or merge them into generic articles where nobody will find them. Ignoring woo-woo topics is not how Wikipedia educates the world. If I didn't know better, I'd think this was being driven by woo-woo advocates unhappy that skeptical Wikipedia articles are showing up in Google results. ApLundell ( talk) 22:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
After much wringing of hands and really some good collaboration had by all involved, it seems we've come to a redirected conclusion for these orbs.
Now, what should we do with Rod (optics)? I am hoping that it will not need an AfD.
jps ( talk) 17:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This guy Etzel Cardeña is basically a parapsychology crank and his article reads like promotion. He has written a bunch of papers claiming psychokinesis is real, yet there are no third-party reliable sources that have reviewed his work. In 2014 (with Dean Radin and others) he signed a nutty paper (in the notorious Frontiers Media) claiming paranormal research is scientific [21]. As reliable sources are lacking I think his article should be submitted for deletion. 80.189.126.234 ( talk) 09:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
First added by User:IMedscaper and after its removal two IPs on 2 different continents. See my edit summary when I removed it and also Talk:Atlantis#Added "other location" Richat Structure in Mauritania, as related in film by George S. Alexander. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Used to be a redirect to Petrodollar recycling which was recently reverted. There were previous AfDs but without consensus, I think. I'm not sure if this is the best place for it, but eyes welcome. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 02:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm writing this kind of in anticipation because there's not exactly an edit war here but there is concerning material relating to WP:BLP and fringe theories.
Zina Bash is being accused on the Internet by non-notable pundits of making a white supremacist gesture, one that isn't actually a white supremacist gesture but one that was invented by 4chan to make liberals look like over-reacters to banal things. See here from the ADL This is a highly harmful allegation with very little substance to it, you wouldn't mention Pizzagate on the biography of Hillary Clinton, for example.
The point is this is fringe to discuss, just like people who accuse pop stars of having Illuminati symbols in their videos. That shouldn't be mentioned on pop stars' biographies, because it's another conspiracy theory but anonymous people on the Internet. This shouldn't be within a million miles of Bash's biography (unless I am gravely mistaken), but how should it be summed up on the OK (gesture) article?
Expectedly, Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 17:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to draw more eyes to Black Sun (symbol). While this symbol has received little attention outside of Germany to date, it is becoming increasingly visible in alt-right and neo-Nazi circles (particularly in the Trump era U.S. political landscape and evidently even in some official context in Ukraine, see Azov Battalion). The article has historically propped the symbol up as "ancient", yet all indications are that the symbol was produced by a Nazi artist during the Third Reich with the intention to glorify the SS in some manner or another (it only occurs during the era on a floor mosaic at Wewelsburg). I'm working on a rewrite of the article, but in the mean time more eyes would be appreciated. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primary_genetics_studies. Jytdog ( talk) 23:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#zapatopi.net -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Emil Kirkegaard has been editing this article. Problem is that he attended this controversial conference and was involved heavily involved with it. There appears to be little to no criticism in the article, it is not neutrally written in relation to the sources. Mainstream news sources have described the conferences as far-right, eugenicist and racist
[22],
[23],
[24]. These were not conferences promoting mainstream science. The ideas were very much on the lunatic fringe. Kirkegaard has tried to counter-balance this by adding a source written by the attendees who do not like the word "eugenics". The paper is online
[25] - problem with this paper, it was co-written by
Richard Lynn (a white supremacist) and a bunch of other racist kooks (Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Edward Dutton (who is associated with the
Mankind Quarterly) etc.
Rationalwiki has a large run-down of the
speakers at the conferences. Practically every speaker is some sort of kook associated with "race realist" community and controversial views from the far-right, alt-right, white nationalism, racism, eugenics, sexism, homophobia etc. They all seem to hold unorthodox views about "race".
Toby Young attended the latest conference and ended up describing the speakers as "right-wing fruitcakes". Any ideas what should be done with this? I suggest that criticism should be added to the article, there is a false balance. Also see the talk-page for a discussion
[26]
Vihaan Khatri (
talk) 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested. Deleet has a sock-puppet Godotskimp who just filed a case against ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants [27]. Kirkegaard has been advertising people to help him on twitter. He is still editing articles related to race and intelligence. Examples: International Society for Intelligence Research which he spoke at a few months ago. Richard Lynn (a white supremacist who he works for), Nathan Brody etc.
As for the
Intelligence (journal), a number of notable racists are involved with it
[28] - Richard Haier, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Gerhard Meisenberg, Arthur R. Jensen etc.
89.163.221.47 (
talk) 17:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
This is something to be on the look-out for. I've noticed that a number of editors have sought to add content falsely claiming that this or that conservative figure has been "shadow-banned", "censored" or blocked by social media platforms. In most of the cases, the claims of bans and censorship turn out to be false and/or unsubstantiated. As you may be aware of, this is a new talking point among rightwing conservatives, so we can expect more bad edits along these lines. I've encountered this type of fringe content on Diamond and Silk, Ronna McDaniel, PragerU and Shadow banning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone is interested in this, but it gives too much credence to "the claim of a Megalithic era discovery of axial precession, and the encoding of this knowledge in mythology."
It also for some reason leaves out the importance of numbers to the author. Jason Colavito wrote on this recently [31] saying "Hamlet’s Mill, published in 1969, is one of the foundational texts of the “alternative archaeology” movement because its writers mined global mythology to hunt out factors and multiples of 72 in order to claim that such numbers proved that world myths all encoded scientific data from a lost civilization about the precession of the equinoxes, in which the stars rotate backwards through the zodiac by one degree every 71.6 years, roughly 72 years to the nearest integer. Thus, numbers like 12, 36, 72, 432, 36,000, etc. all become important “precessional numbers” suggesting remnants of this lost science."
See also its use at Astrological age. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
RF resonant cavity thruster currently says:
References
Note the Results in Physics (journal) is a redlink. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/results-in-physics has more information.
[ https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/21/elsevier-retracting-26-papers-accepted-fake-reviews/#more-53130 ] has some rather interesting information about Results in Physics as well.
And we have [ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Isaac_Dinaharan ], where a researcher says
The relevant passage in the Yin Zhu PDF cited is:
(18) are useful for the observation.
Ref 32 in the Yin Zhu PDF is Yin Zhu citing Yin Zhu:
[ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313315115_A_Design_of_GemDrive ] (PDF version: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yin_Zhu2/publication/313315115_A_Design_of_GemDrive/links/5895a8064585158bf6ede6d0/A-Design-of-GemDrive.pdf)
Which is "A Design of GemDrive" published in "Experiment Findings" by "Yin Zhu, Agriculture Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China".
Odd I thought that schools had Agriculture Departments. Who knew that provinces had them as well?
[ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yin_Zhu2 ] tells us Yin Zhu's position at the Agriculture Department. "Manager".
BTW This contradicts [ https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=56172534300 ], which says that Yin Zhu is with the Fire Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China.
I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This just in: an expert on the subject of conspiracy theories says creationism is wrong, man-made global warming is real, and the US government wasn't involved in the the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps this will clear things up: [33] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the Salem Hypothesis, see Engineers and terrorists and Engineers and terrorists, part 2 and Why do so many terrorists have engineering degrees? for some interesting theories. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
These edits added a couple of categories which I am rather dubious about. I have to doubt whether Summit University is a real "university", or whether Summit University Press is anything other than self-publishing which doesn't really merit calling her a publisher. Opinions? Mangoe ( talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"a spiritual organization based on the teachings of the ascended masters"
Is there a connection with "I AM" Activity, the new religious movement from the 1930s? Dimadick ( talk) 10:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Could use more eyes. Specifically, does the claim from and about the society not engaging in policy belong? Doug Weller talk 17:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Been discussed lots here.
Due to some recent likely socking, I looked at both of these carefully and revised both extensively, trying to raise source quality. Please have a look... Jytdog ( talk) 01:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Nash-Fortenberry UFO sighting ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seems not so well-cited compared to other famous incidents. Is it notable enough?
jps ( talk) 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I have NO DOUBT that Time Life books focused on this particular incident. I've read that (what can most charitably be called) grey literature. The authors of that series haven't met a first-hand account they haven't loved -- these are the intellectual ancestors of the producers active on the History Channel these days. The problem is that while some UFO incidents have been the focus of serious WP:MAINSTREAM consideration for their cultural importance (think Roswell, Barney & Betty Hill, or Jimmy Carter), the vast majority of them are your fifteen-minutes-of-fame types of tales. Incidentally, the reason Project Blue Book was shut down (or, at least, shunted off from public view) was because the sensationalism of these accounts made it nearly impossible to use most of them as anything but campfire stories. Even what believers hail as their "most incredible" incidents have "evidence" of such low quality that we're just left shrugging. All this is to say, we need sources better than Time Life Books. jps ( talk) 11:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Manuel da Silva Rosa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - newest edit is just puffery, eg mentioning an IT contract he once had, suggesting he doesn't work for Duke (which he still does so far as I can tell), etc. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed an IP removing an "unreliable sources" tag from this article, which has a number of UFO sites as sources as well as "From flight plot by Bruce Maccabee" whatever that is (there's an article used as a source by this author but with a different name). Doug Weller talk 08:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
There is ongoing major editing that will require auditing. I've removed a book promotion url earlier which was reinserted and I won't be able to check it again until tomorrow. There may also be a copyright violation (a huge quote transcripted from a youtube video I think). Likely undue weight to fringe claims as well. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 08:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, on further consideration, I think it probably doesn't belong in our encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. jps ( talk) 12:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Another article of this type is creationist cosmologies. How I've tried to get that one to go away. :-/ jps ( talk) 01:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The traditional theology of the Sunni community teaches that Allah is above all one, unique, transcendent, creator, distinct from creation, eternal and permanent, and worthy of worship. Allah has, according to Sunnis, seven essential attributes: life, power, knowledge, will, hearing, sight, and speech. Of these attributes, power means absolute omnipotence, while knowledge, hearing, and sight indicate omniscience. Omnipresence is not stressed to avoid confusing Allah with His creation. Some of the more mystical trends in Islam have emphasized His nearness and presence everywhere (Qur'an 50:16; 57:4), causing others to accuse such mystics of pantheism. The traditional Sunni position explains verses referring to Allah's nearness as meaning He is everywhere near in His knowledge (6:59, etc.), not that He is immanent in His creation.
.
Someone is recently adding material to related articles asserting that FMS was pseudoscience and conspiracy theory to justify sexual abuse. I've not reviewed the literature but I remember reading about it years ago and there were trials which demonstrated personnel incompetence, including using questionable therapies like suggestive hypnotherapy (pseudoscience itself), which would have caused vulnerable people to claim (or admit under possibly coercive circumstances) they were abused, causing a type of moral panic at the time. — Paleo Neonate – 06:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
More suspicious articles:
-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be something of a walled garden. I think we could usefully start by redirecting false memory syndrome to false memory, since the two are the same. Peter J. Freyd could also be merged to False Memory Syndrome Foundation as the "biography" is basically about his founding of that group. The biography was started by a Bonaparte sock. Guy ( Help!) 07:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Someone has added "new information" to the Mantell UFO incident article. It's a NICAP report from a ufologist named Francis Ridge, who claims to have "proven" that the object Mantell spotted couldn't have been a balloon, and essentially argues that the case is still unsolved. Someone has also removed Philip Klass's finding that weather balloons were launched in Ohio on the day of the Mantell incident. Just thought I'd mention it here in case someone wants to check and see if it looks like a credible addition. 70.145.229.162 ( talk) 22:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Zachary King ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So much wrong with this article about a "former satanist". Considered just nominating it for deletion, perhaps somebody here can cut it to a policy-compliant version without removing all of the references. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Wait, there's a Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Satanism? -- Calton | Talk 09:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
New editors who do not edit elsewhere, one of which has been independently identified as a sock of Mikimikev ( User:Doctor Nimrod, renamed account, commented at Talk:Eugenics#No_true_scotsman as User:Richard Lynn 8.
The sole goal seems to promote eugenics as science, despite long-standing consensus. This is very disruptive and prohibits discussing any of the real issues, and has totally stalled any improvement of the article. Carl Fredrik talk 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
A deletion discussion of interest to this board regarding this category is now going on. -- Calton | Talk 09:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Another editor is claiming that this ref constitutes a fringe theory. I am uncertain how a British politics professor writing about British politics in the London Review of Books could possibly constitute a fringe theory; which seems patently absurd to me but I thought it best to bring it here and get some other perspectives. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The Truth Is out There... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The Sunspot Solar Observatory has been closed for more than a week. Authorities remain tightlipped Friday, saying only that an undisclosed security concern was behind the decision to abruptly vacate and lock up the remote facility on Sept 6.Yeah, the NY Times only has this to say, and none of the other sources give any more information than that, just quotes from various people who have no idea what's going on. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 16:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Sunspot Solar Observatory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Groan... this was mentioned on the Today Programme (UK, BBC Radio 4) this morning. Just a short passing mention, but implying that there was some sort of mystery and jokingly referring to the proximity to Roswell. They really ought to know better... GirthSummit (blether) 10:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
https://www.abqjournal.com/1222935/sunspot-observatory-closure-sparked-by-child-porn-investigation.html -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
See RF resonant cavity thruster#Hypotheses.
This section has become a collection of pseudoscientific theories. I propose renaming it "possible sources of errors", keeping the "Noise or experimental error" material, and nuking the sections on "Radiation pressure", "Vacuum energy", "Quantized inertia", "Photon leakage", "Mach effect", and "Warp field".
Comments? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone object to the transclusion of WP:SKEPTIC article alerts ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Article alerts) at the top of this noticeboard? Since the WikiProject is tightly related to this noticeboard, those alerts are relevant to fringe topics. It also could be collapsed by default in a box if its size is a concern... This is unnecessary if most regulars here already transclude or watch it, of course, but I have no idea if that's the case, or if most even know about it, or find it useful. Bot updates to the alerts page would not cause spurious related-changes/watchlist entries, since it would be transcluded. — Paleo Neonate – 00:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Some questionable editing here recently by IPs trying to promote the diet as fact. This article has come up before on this noticeboard here and here. Tera TIX 00:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Nonchalant77 ( talk · contribs) could use some advice on how to edit these articles and the sorts of sources that can be used, eg the journal used here. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I've been checking the histories of Scientology-related articles, and I've noticed that several accounts, all without a user page, have been trying to tilt Scientology-related articles towards one side. Nonchalant77 ( talk · contribs) is one of them: an example of a NPOV-violating edit they made is: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=792456261. Granted, that was over a year ago. But his editing, in general, has been largely around softening Scientology's image.
Similar SPA accounts are: Idyllweiss ( talk · contribs), who hasn't edited since December 2017, also made a painfully non-neutral edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scientology_and_celebrities&diff=prev&oldid=758310837. Another account is Totempoles007 ( talk · contribs), who made a non-NPOV edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Delphian_School&diff=prev&oldid=850599282.
Another example of a SPA account is: Wordsculptor2018 ( talk · contribs), their edits are largely around softening David Miscavige's article - adding that he got a medal from the Colombian Police in this edit, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Miscavige&diff=851193834&oldid=851068322.
I apologise if there isn't enough evidence to support my claim, but I fear that /info/en/?search=Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia may be happening again - only from proxies or such. Lolifan ( talk) 19:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I noticed this article because someone tagged it with the WP:SKEPTIC tag. The article itself has a few issues tags. When reading it partly, I noticed that it diverged for unclear reasons including a claim about IQ inheritance. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 16:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
As discussed Talk:Planck length#Planck Length edit by user:EntropyFormula an editor has repeatedly inserted a section based on a fringe-looking paper with only nine cites in Google scholar (and all those cites are self-citations). [47] The editor has declined to say if he has a WP:COI in the matter. Eyes needed here. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC).
I have just created a section regarding conspiracy theories at the Tim Anderson (political_economist) article. [48] He is notable for two overturned convictions in relation to terrorist bombings/bomb_plots, and later for publishing wild conspiracy theories (on kooky conspiracy theory sites) that various governments, international organisations, academic institutions, and pretty much every WP:RS on the planet were all conspiring to falsify and fabricate evidence surrounding the Syrian Civil war. And by the way, they are also all conspiring to censor him when personally when the word dismisses his claims. I also created a section on the Article_talk so any issues can be discussed there.
I invite other editors to examine my work and to expand, correct, or otherwise improve any content in that section or elsewhere in the article. I also invite other editors to watchlist the page, as I believe the article has a highly suspicious editing history for [reasons in part relating to off-wiki info that shouldn't explain here and now]. If other editors have concerns with the past or near-future editing of the article: I request you wait and consult with me before initiating administrative investigation or action, again for [reasons in part relating to off-wiki info that shouldn't explain here and now]. Alsee ( talk) 14:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the topic of interests section uses blogs and in-universe/apologetic sources for a list of definitions. I'm not sure that such a section is needed anyway, or it also could simply list article/wikilinks about topics mentioned in a common source about the Novella's interests, without alternative definitions. More opinions/eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 16:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Wanted to see if we could get a consensus to label the views of the American College of Pediatricians regarding conversion therapy and LGBT parenting as fringe. As their Wikipedia article makes pretty clear, their views appear to be politically and not scientifically based. Afaict, this hasn't been addressed before ( FTN archive search). They appear to be a splinter group of about 500 members that split off from the 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatrics, for the purpose of advocating against same-sex marriage and gay parenting.
The ACP stands alone against dozens of professional medical organizations on these topics, and from what I can glean, their views on a number of topics seem clearly fringe. More on the ACP from Psychology Today [1] the AAoP, [2] HRC, [3] and the APA. [4] Mathglot ( talk) 18:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Alsee: Yes, it's more about referencing them in another article, albeit possibly indirectly. Background: dozens of professional medical associations all agree and have position statements about about some lgbt-related things (value of conversion therapy, effects of LGBT parenting, etc.) with the exception of ACP, which appears to stand alone against prevailing opinion. Would we be justified stating the majority opinion in Wikipedia's voice, sourcing solely the majority references without mentioning that opposing opinion exists if it is medically fringe? For example, could we say that "the idea that children are better off when raised by opposite-sex couples is scientifically refuted" (or, "unanimously opposed by professional medical associations") sourcing only PT and HRC or other majority opinion sources, while saying nothing about ACP because they are fringe? Currently, I feel we have to mention their opposition, or at least avoid the word "unanimous" or "refuted", but if there is consensus here that they are medically fringe, I'd happily go along with that and call it unanimous or state the conclusion in Wikipedia's voice.
There is an ongoing Rfc about a case of citation overkill that probably arose because of a conflict in how to address the fringe position of ACP. The disputed article content is at Same-sex marriage#Opposition and the Rfc about the citation overkill situation is here, with a side discussion about the FRINGE aspects here, starting about half-way down. Mathglot ( talk) 20:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
As was pointed out and made clear
here and
here, the
American College of Pediatricians is not a professional association, it is a fringe advocacy group which has been listed as a hate group by the
Southern Poverty Law Center. Its deceptive name is intended to get non-discerning readers and unwitting non-professionals to confuse it with the
American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the professional association of pediatricians. Scientific researchers, including the director of the
National Institutes of Health, have stated that the ACP has misused or mischaracterized their work in order to advance the ACP's political agenda. Per
WP:FALSEBALANCE, which states, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity [...] we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it
", the agenda-driven views of a fringe advocacy group should be entirely disregarded and only the science-driven positions of professional associations should be presented in this medical/scientific matter. --
Justthefacts9 (
talk) 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Some of the stated reasons the group has given for opposing adoption by same-sex couples are certainly pseudoscientific and fringe. It's more than reasonable to couch those as pseudoscientific per Wikipedia guidelines. To say that the pseudoscientific views are not worth mentioning at all is a possible interpretation, but if they have garnered outside attention from relevant experts who have identified these positions as pseudoscientific, such criticism can be mentioned in the article. Are there sources we can identify which do this? jps ( talk) 12:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
A side-issue concerning this: there’s a disagreement at the talk page whether ACP may be referred to as a “professional association [of pediatricians]”. It seems clear they’re a political advocacy ggroup, there’s no argument there. But given that they are an association whose members are pediatricians, are they not also a “professional association”? The point here is whether one can say that “all professional associations say X (about gay issue Y)”. Mathglot ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Duane Gish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Resident creationists seem to think that as long as we attribute gushing praise of Duane Gish to Henry M. Morris, it's perfectly fine. I think it's WP:COAT. Whaddya think?
Anyway, more eyes, as usual, appreciated.
jps ( talk) 17:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Why does Category:Satanic ritual abuse in the United States even exist when only the subcat is needed? See Category talk:Satanic ritual abuse in the United States. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Needs some cleanup generally, if anyone can improve on what I just added about "The University of America" it would also be appreciated. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Smth is happening with this page again. May be the edits are fine, but I am not competent in this subject, and more eyes are welcome. In the past, it often became a garden for Rife adepts and/or conspiracy theorists.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Recently, however, the company Novobiotronics has taken up similar research with a measurable level of success demonstrated at Ted conferences and other public venues.
Miracle of the Sun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Persistent removal of criticism, ongoing: [50]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI
Jytdog (
talk) 20:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Needs eyes, some NPOV wording, dubious sourcing. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
A while back I ran into a conspiracy theory that claims that all of the other conspiracy theories were generated by (the government? the Illuminati? The Reptilians? I don't remember) in order to get us to dismiss conspiracy theories, thus paving the way for the real conspiracy. I just searched and couldn't find it -- clearly because Google is in on it. :) Does anyone know where I can find such a thing? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The article Rudraksha, particularly the "Uses of Rudraksha" section, appears to be full of pseudoscientific content regarding "electromagnetic power" and healing properties of these seeds. Can someone take a look? Deli nk ( talk) 12:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Is this notable? It seems to have won an award that I don't think we'd usually mention. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Parapsychologist with crank ideas about psychokinesis being real. Several skeptic sources were removed from the article. Have restored last good old version with the skeptic sources included and without the publication promotion (citing loads of Roll's paranormal papers is not needed on the article) but have been reverted. 82.132.231.71 ( talk) 11:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently a psychologist somewhere said that Psi is totally as real as other psychological phenomena; what Replication Crisis pretty much in hand as it stands but it's always good to make sure people are aware. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Problems are spreadying to Paranormal. [56] jps ( talk) 00:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Related: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
A while back I moved parapsychology from "Basic psychology" to "See also" on Outline of psychology (next to neurolinguistic programming). It was just moved to "other areas by topic", which might be justified, but I'm not entirely convinced parapsychology is really a part of psychology these days - might be worth a look. -- tronvillain ( talk) 12:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
So I've noticed for a while now that there has been a massive purge of articles from WikiProject Cryptozoology and everything related to it. Now I know that it seems around here that simply ADDING an article to the project or categories related to it seems to be a soft point for some people around here. I am not trying to start an argument but why is it that this needs to happen. Why can they not be a part of BOTH Folklore and Cryptozoology (in most cases this is correct). Adding it to the crypto category is not an avocation that the subject is real or not, it only acknowledges that it has been classified as a cryptid by some Cryptozoologists or has reports of something similar in real life. Cryptozoology is the study of animals that have yet to be verified of their existence, it may not be a legitimate science but completely ignoring reports/info on this seems very much like POV Pushing although I may be wrong. Now I'm not here to advocate for certain sides here, but it seems to me that people have forgotten/misread the guidelines of Wikipiedia around this subject. It NEVER says to ignore fringe theories all together or not show them (after all we are just an encyclopedia-type site), so completely ignoring or purging such topics seems s bit extreme an action. True, the source needs to be legitimate and I'm all for that (been an advocate for reliable sources since day 1), there should be no references from blogs on unlegitimate sites since THAT is in violation of Wikipiedia's policy. Books on the subject are very helpful and it would be a shame not to take advantage of the information they yield. I just want to know what people here think of that idea.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 21:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
made up crap. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Wording things a bit nicer when talking to people will go a long way BloodofFox. Although I do agree (partially) on your point. There has been kind of a tenancy to add every single source one finds, which is not helpful in establishing the legitimacy of the WikiProject. I tend to find that the "academic" sources really don't have an extensive research on the subject since they usually don't feel it's in line with what they feel is a real science (technically its not) and any info to come from it they discount. I'm still wondering if Dr. Greg Meldrum (an anthropologist) would be a good enough source for Sasquatch info...-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
And everywhere else...-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't want this to turn into a big long argument with people insulting differences in opinions. I've had enough of that dealing with with BoF. I just want to clarify the parameters of sources since it's been severely limited by the Fringe and Profringe people. All of that aside, I find that it IS an issue finding only academic sources for Cryptozoology articles since there are so few and some that are get classified as Fringe (something that happens quite a bit). It just makes the expansion of such articles extremely frustrating when you have such a limited amount of what the Fringe and Profringe people accept as good enough sources.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm only trying to reach an agreement since I was told by someone experienced with these kind of antics that it was more POV pushing than anything else. Can't say I din't try though (sighs).-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"Perhaps consider a Wikia option?" Another one? Wikia already includes Cryptid Wiki, CryptoWiki, and New Cryptozoology Tarmola Wiki. Dimadick ( talk) 09:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Those alternates have a tendency to not cite sources and are poorly structured. I just feel that, by saying ONLY academic sources are allowed, it severely restricts the amount of expansion we can give to those articles since there is just not a lot of academic sources out there on the individuals. There's more on cryptozoology as a whole, mostly detractors, but that's pretty much it. Not at all ideal when one wants to expand those articles to their fullest extent. I still haven't received any satisfactory explanation for the mass removal of the crypto wikiproject banner and categories from articles. All I've gotten is that, since sources doesn't mention the specific word "Cryptid" it doesn't count. Looking at these sources, some say "purported" or "mysterious", and since cryptozoology is the study of the purported and mysterious I think it fits. All I ask is why does it have to be that specific in terms of wording?-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Fringe should not be used as a bludgeon to disallow anything that is not "accepted knowledge". Slatersteven ( talk) 18:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I do agree. The scarce academic sources on individual cryptids in general is VERY few, and those that exist almost seem evasive or discounting. As an encyclopedia we must strive to create the very best articles on those subject that his humanly possible. If not enough academic sources are available we should not discount other possible sources. With that in mind I've seen it all too often that pieces of information that come from a good source that gives both pieces of information on both sides (often analysis, but also purported sightings from news outlets). A very good example of this being the research by primatologist Dr. Jeff Meldrum on Bigfoot using his background on Primates and hence an academic source. Now I'm not pushing for outright legitimization as some people claim that I am, nor am I wanting to make it as one person termed "a compendium of arcana", I am merely pointing out that in order to be an encyclopedia we must establish that animals such as the Giant Panda, Komodo Dragon, and Mountain Gorilla were once classified as Cryptids, as is any animal that is claimed to exist but so far hasn't been proven. We should outright say "oh, this is real" but state that it's purported to exist, that way we are keeping to Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards by not legitimizing the pseudoscience. I would like to see the academic theories on the various cryptids as well as the disagreements on those theories if they are from legitimate sources but that might be pushing it. Although I'm not entirely sure considering we have FA class articles on the theories behind the mysterious deaths of well known people. that seems to be more like a conspiracy theory to me. As for Extraterrestials/UFOs, I've never been a believer in that stuff and there are even fewer academic sources on THAT than there are on Cryptozoology. I would consider those topics THEORIES and little else.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 21:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Never heard that source existed so I wouldn't have used it anyways. The giant panda, the komodo dragon, and the mountain gorilla weren't specifically called "cryptid" but that doesn't mean that the word needs to be explicitly stated. Seems to me that's a common error some make.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 22:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
That's all I need to know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleface Jack ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Although I don't appreciate the sas though...-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 00:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Just realized something. Since Wikipiedia is a Reference/Encyclopedia site, shouldn't we be including both sides of the "Cryptid debate"? I was just wondering because, even though it's classified under "Fringe Theories" this site is more reference-based rather than conspiracy theory based. What I'm meaning by this is that, in terms of literary sources to include as references for this topic, we should consider adding as much literary sources a possible (with some regulation on that of course). Just a thought but I thought that it would be worth mentioning here. In terms of websites, I'm very hesitant with using non-acedemic/news references for this topic since they are not verifiably truthful.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Ferkijel ( talk) 14:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) I believe the blanket answer to this question is that these arguments (including this so called "cryptid debate") all fall under logical fallacies/arguments from ignorance. The very first sentence in this talk says that "Cryptozoology is the study of animals that have yet to be verified of their existence", and that by itself characterises the topic as a fringe theory. As per Wikipedia principles (in particular the principle of neutral point of view), the community shouldn't give fringe theories undue weight. [1] [2]
References
Some may remember User creating articles on countless Theosophy books and Theosophy_and_science. The user's articles (essays) could probably still use some more eyes - I've put a couple up for deletion and have one up now, but there are probably more that should be nominated or significantly altered. --14:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronvillain ( talk • contribs)
While researching something unrelated (methods for quantifying collagen production in vitro) I came across a useful-looking article published in Elsevier's Journal of Ginseng Research, which sounds sketchy, so I wanted to look into its reliability. Surprisingly, it's not only given an impact factor by JCR (the usual up-or-down criterion for notability per WP:NJOURNAL 1c), but is included in NCBI's PMC database. A recent review of biomedical ginseng research in Molecules found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the JGR had published more articles on ginseng research than any other journal.
Is that good enough for me to write an article for it, or is the fact that it's organized around research on a traditional medicinal enough that people here would presume it falls under FRINGE? FourViolas ( talk) 14:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)