Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 42

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

Harbinger Group#Connections with the CIA

The conspiracy-minded have linked this company, of which George H. W. Bush was a founder, to the CIA and the usual shenanigans. Lengthy quotes from dubious sources. A fresh set of eyes on this would be appreciated. Thanks! -Location (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Badly written. I've done some trimming, more to be done and I may have done slightly too much. I think John Loftus is ok as a source, attributed (which he is). We need to say something about the allegations. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but how is "MadCow Morning News" a reliable source? Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Follow the bouncing ball: John Simkin of Spartacus Educational posts a biography of Porter Goss that has a photo of Goss and others alleged by the CT community of having shady backgrounds.[[1] Don Bohning in a 2008 Washington Decoded article states that he calls Goss who vehemently denies that he is in the photo.[2] Simkin replies in the comment section that the origin for that claim is not him but Daniel Hopsicker in Mad Cow Morning News. Sure enough, that claim is in the aforementioned Mad Cow Morning News article.[3] Not only is there enough here to cast doubt on the reliability of Hopsicker, it is another example of why Simkin and Spartacus Educational should not be considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. -Location (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
And David Ratcliffe is self-published. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
If people could take a look at the deletion discussion for the image in this section, I'd appreciate it. I'm guessing it's from a conspiracy site and that it's just someone's supposition that we're seeing Bush (not to mention I'm not seeing the significance of a picture of him just looking down from an oil rig), but I haven't found a possible source. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Rima Laibow

This is by the editor who created Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, now at AfD (where it has a couple of fans who insist that it is notable but can't find sources). As a BLP it has some bad sources, eg last.fm. It also simply promotional and pov, eg ", she met Maxim Chyrdakov a young man who as a pilot encountered a UFO. She was asked to exmine him to assertain the thruthfulness of his account. She verified that he appeared genuine". Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rima Laibow - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Barry Smith (preacher) - more of a New World order article than a biography

By one of the above editors. Full of New World Order stuff, microchipping people, etc., much of it not relating directly to Smith other than he writes/talks about it. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

AfD it. I don't see any evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Kurgan and Kurgan hypothesis


Need help with a Turkish POV warrior who keeps adding Paleolithic Continuity, Starostin, Altaic crap that is altogether irrelevant to the article. Has already broken 3RR again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't you realize your claims are purely racist and unscientific POV? --Ragdeenorc (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Talking with your mirror image again? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
You have a sharp tongue with no arguments. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


What shall I do if this guy thinks that people (80% of Caucasoid stock) are 100% Mongoloid in origin. He doesn't even accept a simple Etymology of a word. Tell me please, what shall I do? --Ragdeenorc (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Try to resolve with the other user first and formost, if that is ineffective there is the dispute resolution process and the dispute resolution noticeboard. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 03:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


Not entirely sure how to close this, but with the dispute resolution topic opened, I think this would better be resolved there. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to "close". This board is for input on topics that may involve fringe theories. Just directing editors to dispute rsolution is not, IMO, meaningful use of the board. Paul B (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Gore effect

Gore Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hard to know whether this is all about fringe theories like global warming conspiracy theories or not, but I thought I'd drop this here anyway since many of you are smarter than the average bear.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect (2nd nomination).

jps (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Manitoban UFO sightings

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Redstar.

jps (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A collection of stories from one author that doesn't seem to have gotten any traction in the non-ufo world. - LuckyLouie (talk)

Menemen

Article of Menemen. Massacre on Turks happened in this town under Greek occupation in 1919. Greek sources speak of mutual excesses but a western commission who traveled to the area disagrees. They found it one sided. User:Alexikoua disagrees and is doing revisionism on this page by using one Greek source. [[4] Adds part about atrocities against Greeks. Then changes the main article link of Menemen massacre into "mutual excesses" in disregard that multiple Western sources named it "one sided". 2. edit [5] Is adding massacres committed on Greeks by Turks while removing or rewording events the other way, rewords sources. Accuses multiple times who disagree with it, wants to ban. I had user reported here [6] with no result. Claims that different sources refer to the same events. Endless biased behavior. Dunderstrar (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This might be a job for WP:NPOVN. It's not so much a case of fringe sources but biased selection of sources leading to a PV article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone fix this and move it to there? Thanks. Dunderstrar (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I was gonna say, wp:NPOVN job. It can't be fringe case.Alexikoua (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@Dunderstrar, just re-raise the matter in the appropriate forum. We will close the discussion here. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
And remember, a good article does not smooth over ambiguities, it explains them. Presuming you accurately reflect the independent sources, the Greek report could be disCussed, as well as why it's been rejected. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

MRA fringe material

Closing at request of initiator and because the discussion had become non-productive. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A men's rights activist is insisting that there are "academic sources" which show that there is a legitimate topic to study regarding "violence against men".

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men.

jps (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, fringe material like [7] or [8] or [9] or [10] or even the many sources cited at Domestic violence against men or Androcide etc. FWIW, I'm not even an MRA! So :P to you too :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This kind of protestation mirrors many we've seen here. No different than creationism, vaccine denial, race and intelligence true believers, etc. jps (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that "violence against men" is in some sense a spurious concept? I fail to see any analogy to creationism, 'vaccine denial' or 'race and intelligence'. Clearly it is a real and legitimate topic. The question is what weight to give it and how it to be understood in a broader context of gender-directed violence. Paul B (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely, it's spurious. Compare someone who is writing about "vaccine dangers" or "correlations between race and intelligence". It's the same under-the-radar synthetic misuse of legitimate sources. Is it interesting to study in the broader context of violence gender dynamics? Yes. Does this mean that "violence against men" is a systematic occurrence? No. There is essentially zero academic support for such a claim. That's the categorical idiosyncrasy being promoted here. There simply isn't a way to distinguish between violence and specific "violence against men". This is in stark contrast to the vast literature on misogynistic violence. MRAs may be upset that there is a difference, but they have to prove their case outside of Wikipedia, not through synthetic categorization. ("See? Wikipedia shows instances of violence against men!") jps (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Individual editors may be guilty of synth on specific occasions in any topic, but you are, I think, confusing separate issues. Subjects such as "vaccine dangers" or "correlations between race and intelligence" are, in themselves, legitimate topics for articles, since they are of course widely discussed. You seem to be conflating that with the separate question of whether there are in fact dangers of vaccines or race differentials in innate intelligence. Violence against men is undeniably real. Whether it is useful to create an article listing all the different types of it is another question. There is systematic violence specifically directed against men in many cases (usually by other men). There is also domestic violence against men by abusive partners (male and female). Is there anything useful to say about the connection between the two? Maybe, maybe not I would agree in this case that an all inclusive category may not be useful, though I could be persuaded otherwise. Categories are there to help find related topics. I don't find it difficult to imagine that someone would want to look at different types of violence against men. I don't think Synth applies in such cases, since categories are just lists. They are not making an argument. Let's recall what you claimed: "A men's rights activist is insisting that there are "academic sources" which show that there is a legitimate topic to study regarding "violence against men". Whether he's a "men's rights activist" or not seems to be disputed. But of course he's right, there are "academic sources" on violence against men. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You may believe this, but it's actually not true. A great number of sources, including several I just posted here, specifically describe these instances as "gender-based violence", that is targeted at men and boys because of their gender. Those same sources discuss exactly that one can distinguish between violence (such as violence perpetrated due to a gang war, or violence done by combatants against combatants), and gender-based violence. That your own world view doesn't align with this is no reason to impugn the sources - none of which come from the MRA. Anyway, your mind seems made up, no matter what sources say, so I agree with Brainy J there may be no good reason to engage with you anymore.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It's responses such as this which show that you simply are unable or unwilling because of your ideology to accept that a man can be targeted for gender-based violence but it's not an instance of "violence against men" (that is, people attacking men because they are men). There is simply no instance of that kind of thing. There are instances of violence against communities that target men for certain kinds of violence and women for other kinds of violence, but that's not the same thing. You have shown zero support for your MRA-advocacy in the academic literature. jps (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a couple of quotes from the literature that I posted elsewhere: "To be sure, this targeting of men specifically is itself a form of gendered violence."; " I argue that gender-based violence against men (including sexual violence, forced conscription, and sex-selective massacre) must be recognized as such, condemned, and addressed by civilian protection agencies and proponents of a ‘human security’ agenda in international relations."; "That the gender-selective mass killing and "disappearance" of males, especially "battle-age" males, remains a pervasive feature of contemporary conflict is not open to dispute. Indeed, its frequency across cultures and conflict types marks it as a possibly definitional element of contemporary warfare, state terrorism, mob violence, and paramilitary brigandage". I guess I'm confused, if men are specifically selected out of a group and killed or subject to sexual humiliation, and academics call this gender-based violence, how exactly is this not "people attacking men because they are men"? I'm afraid the literature is against you on this, and not surprisingly, you haven't been able to marshal any literature of your own to back up your bizarre POV. The fact that VAM is different from and manifests itself in different ways and places than VAW is true, but it doesn't mean VAM doesn't exist as a topic of serious study.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew that USAID and the UN were fringe organizations! "Men and boys also experience sexual violence, increasingly documented in conflict countries and especially when gender identity conflicts with gender norms." "Working with Men and Boy Survivors of Sexual and Gender-based Violence in Forced Displacement" And please stop your personal attacks of calling the editor a MRA, when he has repeatedly said he is not one: "Also, please stop running around accusing anyone who disagrees with your particular POV as an MRA, I'm not an MRA, I don't identify as an MRA, and I have not read deeply the literature of the MRA nor do I spent time haunting the MRA websites."-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Neither of those sources speak to a categorical indicator that there is such a distinct identifier of when violence is directed at men qua men. If you can't figure that out, then you probably aren't competent enough to be making editorial decisions such as this. jps (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Oooh, harsh, man. Whatever. You're clearly not amenable to discussion on this. Bye.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
When a couple having an affair with each other is murdered by the jilted lover, is that Violence against heterosexuals? When a gunman goes on a rampage in a rural US postoffice with no racial minorities present, is that Violence against white people? The point is that "violence against a group" is a statement about violence directed against the group because of the group identity. This has not been demonstrated to exist for "violence against men". jps (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think there are some reliable sources which describe the crimes of Aileen Warnous as gender based violence against men, but I agree, in general, it seems hard to find reliable sources which describe specific crimes or attacks as gender based violence against men. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Not that hard, if you look.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You are repeating the confusion here. If a couple have a row and the man hits the woman is that "violence against women"? You betcha! If a couple has a row and the woman hits the man is that "violence against men"? Apparently not, according to you. That's a double standard, pure and simple. if a series of individual acts can be systematically examined and placed in a conceptual category by reliable sources than yes, it exists in discourse. That does not mean that every example of violence against heterosexuals, short people, fat people etc is usefully categorised as such. I confess I am astonished by the anger, virulence and need to deny the concept displayed here. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You must not be up on the way that gender and violence are studied. Gender is a social construct. Violence against a gender is directed against the group. There is a vast and heavy literature about how domestic violence against women is part of the structural violence directed against the female gender in Western society. There is no accompanying literature about how domestic violence against men is somehow part of structural violence directed against the male gender. It simply doesn't exist. This is the WP:RGW that the MRMs are fighting. You may also think this is wrong, but Wikipedia cannot help you and by insisting that it accommodate this kind of categorical demarcation, you are essentially advocating for original research. That's what the literature says. Now, where should we go from here? jps (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If you ignore sources, yes that's true. Keep your blinders on and keep believing that no sources discuss gender-based violence against men. You really DONT want it to be true, however, which is why you've resorted to personal attacks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and creationists insist that my blinders are on towards discussion of intelligent design in the "sources". Your concern trolling, however, needs to be called out. You are using Wikipedia to advance your agenda. That's the long and the short of it. It's not hard for people to see who look at your contributions. jps (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a reasonable compromise/exit-strategy here would be to have some kind of article about "Violence targetted against specific groups" (which probably already exists in some form or another) - which could break out into the existing articles about violence against specific groups when corresponding subsections of the main article become too large (eg for the Violence against Women article). This would be a place to collect any notable materials - and if indeed the section on violence specifically against men becomes sufficiently substantial, then we can fork it's own article in a natural manner. Violence specifically directed to men undoubtedly does happen in one form or another - it's not uncommon (for example) for an invading army to haul off men and boys of fighting age and shoot them all...which you'd have to say was undoubtedly violence specifically directed towards men by virtue of their gender and nothing else. Issues of scope and notability can be more naturally handled in an umbrella article where less notable material can be collected as a small part of a larger discourse. SteveBaker (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
We used to have a Violence against men article, but it was moved to Domestic violence against men. I think we should put our heads together and do some research to build a new Violence against men article, given as a starting point some of the literature here. In any case, the current discussion underway concerns the category of Category:Violence against men - topic categories are meant to group articles around a general topic, which the current category does quite nicely, but some are calling it to be deleted since they think it's all MRA propaganda. I'm quite confused as to why, however, given the sources I've provided to date...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You are playing the fool, but all that is needed to see your approach is to look through your contributions. You are clearly shilling for a MRM advocacy position. jps (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271222 Arkon (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent source for why we should delete the category: "Sexual violence against men and women during war are not separate phenomena." jps (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Or you know, you could continue reading: "Further, sexual violence against men is best understood as part of a continuum of violence against men in society, from bullying of boys, to the rape of men in prison, and the sexual humiliation of Muslim Arab men in Abu Ghraib." Arkon (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
That still does nothing to argue that there is an appropriate categorization of "Violence against men". Still quite the opposite. If you can't see that, then I'm pretty sure it's for ideological reasons. It's the same way an intelligent design believer thinks that SETI is somehow supporting their blinkered view of the origin of life. jps (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ahhh, so you only have smears left, good to know! I think we're done here. Arkon (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The implication being that I'm lying or distorting the truth. However, I do see from your contributions a similar kind of WP:SPA MRM pattern to your editing. Do you deny it? jps (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The implication being that you are playing IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't give a fuck what you think of my edit history. Arkon (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Further_sources for expand sourcing on sexual and gender-based violence against men. jps claims There is no accompanying literature about how domestic violence against men is somehow part of structural violence directed against the male gender. It simply doesn't exist. Ok, i don't know if that's true, but so what? That is not the claim being made. You're inventing goalposts and then claiming that we haven't passed them. Again, are there any sources which support your claims - e.g. sources which say "Well, violence against men isn't really a real topic worthy of study unless such violence is directed at the male gender" You keep on waving your hand, where as I have provided copious sources. Where are your sources that defend your claims?? The claims being made are simple.
  1. Does violence against men exist?
Obviously
  1. Does gender-based violence against men exist - e.g. violence where the victims are selected based on their gender?
Yes. Plenty of sources for this as well.
  1. Do scholars and reliable sources STUDY the topic of sexual and gender-based violence against men, and do they compare how this violence happens across time and space?
Yes, plenty of evidence for this as well.
  1. Are there any sources that say gender-based violence of men doesn't exist?
No, none have been found to date. I think some people on twitter have made such claims, but I don't think that counts as a reliable source.
  1. Is there a claim being made that Violence against men is equivalent to violence against women, or that they derive from the same root causes, have the same effects, are studied in similar detail, or are otherwise equivalent?
No. Therefore, attempts to say "Well, VAW is like this, and VAM is like that, therefore, VAM isn't a valid topic of study nor a valid category to exist at wikipedia" goes against all of our policies.
  1. Is the claim being made that Violence against men is DIFFERENT than violence against women, with different effects, different impacts, different responses from international organizations, differing modalities, differing victimhood rates, differing across time and space?
Yes, plenty of sources which study violence against men distinguish it from violence against women. It takes different forms, arises in different places, for different reasons.

Unfortunately, your argument is tainted with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, comparisons to extreme groups which don't share my point of view, and most importantly, lacks SOURCES which back up any of the claims you have so far presented. If you want to have a reasoned discussion on this, bring some sources to the table that attack the claims I've put on the table.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Either you have a category that is meaningless (i.e. "violence against any man") or a category that is polemically political, (i.e. "violence against men because they are men"). This is not "violence against men because of gender role segregation" or "violence against men that accompanies violence against women" which would be categorical repositioning that could be deconstructed. This is a category that is created to mirror "violence against women". As I pointed out, a categorical demarcation of "violence against heterosexuals" doesn't exist. It's a parallel situation. jps (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If there were 50 sources discussing "violence against heterosexuals" then we'd create it. I note again the lack of sources anywhere in your claims. I'm well aware of your opinion, but what are the facts you're using to back said opinion up. Violence against men is meaningless as a category? Says who? Can you show me a reliable source that says "Violence men as an area of study is useless" or that says "Sexual violence against men in conflict is unconnected with sexual violence against men in peace time"? (recent sources coming out of DRC Congo suggest the exact opposite). The category was not created to "mirror" violence against women, it was a category created to contain articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men, which is, despite your wishes, studied by many scholars. I've set the goalposts, made my claims, and laid my evidence. All you've done is accuse me of being a misogynist MRA supporter. Can you do better?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
There are fifty sources. You just have to point your search engines to the right keywords. I'm not going to play this game any longer, however, because 1) you simply cannot prove the negative that there is no categorical literature on violence against men because they are men, and 2) there are always ways to cherrypick sources (see quotemining) to find the term "violence against men" used out-of-context which is 100% completely all you've done. So if you're not doing it out of an ideological bent to right great wrongs, you are doing it because you've been duped to be the shill. It's not possible to tell which is which, but it's a classic story here on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221894285_Sexual_and_gender_based_violence_against_men_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_Congo_effects_on_survivors_their_families_and_the_community Arkon (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And STILL NOT EVIDENCE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN AS MEN. In other words, this was not an indiscriminate targeting of men because they were men. jps (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, totally, I mean gender based violence against men certainly isn't evidence of violence against men as men, that would be absurd! Are you hearing yourself? Arkon (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you add anything to this website besides trolling for the MRM? Because I can't see any evidence of it from your contributions? jps (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I certainly provide a much smaller block log. Arkon (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Jps, I've provided quotes that say exactly that - e.g. "killing of men because they are men" - but you still don't care. I haven't quote-mined, I've read a great number of these articles. Remember, we're talking here about a category, not an article. Have you ever seen a category that had to defend itself with 50 sources backing up that the category as a relevant topic of study? You're not going to demonstrate sources because your claim is true and should be accepted without sources? I had no idea your ideas were so wise. Or you're not going to provide sources because you, and you alone, get to set the bar, which is "Violence against men is not a worth topic of study nor of categorization unless it can be demonstrated that the men are targeted for violence because they are men - oh and by the way, nothing else can come into it - not ethnoreligious hatred, social status, anything - it has to be pure unmitigated hatred of all men on the planet being killed by a tribe of warlike amazons from their lesbian utopia, otherwise it is simply not worth wikipedia's time" - you don't get to set the bar jps. Sources set the bar. Sources study this as a topic, they call it "sexual and gender-based violence against men", those are the words they use, and they do gendered analysis of why men are targeted, how that targeting interacts with the gender roles, how the use of sexual violence against men is used to demonstrate a superiority over the vanquished men, how women are implicated in the victimization of men in conflicts, how gender roles that men inhabit prevent them from speaking out or seeking treatment, and so on and so forth. But what have you brought to the table? nothing but polemic, and self-invented goal posts, that if my sources don't pass they don't get a category. It's tendentious bullshit, so I'm asking you again, what sources back up your wild claims? If you don't have sources, then drop it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have spent a great deal of time on this issue. Are you connected to it as an advocate or professional? In what capacity? Please note that the Wikipedia terms of use dictate that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope, no connection, I'm not paid for anything I do here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
That's the quotemining thing again. What you have not provided is a source that illustrates that there is a systematic targeting of men for the sole reason that they are men. That's the point. Yep. It has to be pure unmitigated hatred for men because that's exactly what is studied in the context of violence against women. You may disagree with that, but it's the WP:MAINSTREAM approach. Go ahead and argue in the gender studies department at a local university. The sources that discuss gender-based violence are never in the context of targeting men for being men. You haven't shown any instances of such. To argue that you need sources to prove this lack of sources is the proving the negative fallacy all over again. You haven't risen to your WP:BURDEN of proof and the WP:REDFLAGs are waving. jps (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
So, therefore, if a man rapes a woman, then goes back to his loving wife and loving daughters, he didn't commit violence against women, and such an instance shouldn't be added to the VAW category? Or if a militia walks into a town and ONLY rapes the hindu women, but not the muslim ones, is that not violence against women? You obviously haven't read the sources I provided, so you have no clue what they say, and your accusations of quote mining are as shallow as your arguments. Can you please try to bring sources to the conversation that back up your claims? For example, show me a source that shows that violence against women is ONLY violence against women if it is based on pure unmitigated hatred of all women globally, and if the perpetrator discriminates in any way in the selection of victims (e.g. only choosing the enemy's women vs his own country's women), then it ceases to be violence against women. Do such sources exist?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
There you go again. The argument is not with any violence against women categorization which is an entirely separate issue from an editorial standpoint. The argument is with this absurd WP:GEVAL point that MRMs and you are trying to make that because violence against women exists as a category we deserve a violence against men category and because you and other MRAs can find certain phrases in google scholar search results. jps (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If I'm cherry picking, then prove it. Take a source, read it, and show how the claims I've made above are actually not what the source says. Again, this isn't an article, we're simply trying to establish whether the TOPIC of gender-based violence against men (the stated scope of the category) is a valid topic for categorization and a grouping that is used in the literature.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I've already done so elsewhere. It's clear to me you are simply acting WP:MASTADONy at this point. jps (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Stepping back, I think that one could reasonably have articles such as female rape of men and domestic violence against men, and might want to link them. There are sociological studies on such things, particularly around relative difficulty of access to help. But a LOT of care would be needed, and I'd say that those article should be about 95% based on peer-reviewed and official sources, with not an inkling of MRA allowed in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

JPS - thank you for reminding me that I had taken the MRA targets off of my watchlist. I see now that the most recent targets of the true believers in "But what about men's rights?" activism are now focused on distorting history. I don't think it's worth arguing with them further here. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Or, we could just ask a simpler question. Suppose a man walks into a school, separates all the girls, lets all the boys go, and slaughters the girls. Is that violence against women? You betcha. Now, a woman walks into a school, separates the boys from the girls, and lets all the girls go, and slaughters all of the boys. Were those boys killed because they were boys? You betcha. Now suppose Boko Harem walks into a village, and gathers all of the men in the village, and then slaughters them. As civilians try to escape, they grab young boys and infants and slaughter them, but send any women off into the forest to run. Were those men killed because they were men? Yes, they were. Were there other factors at play when the man walked into the school to kill the girls? Did he hate all girls? Did he hate old grandmothers too, and random women from tribes in Africa? Probably not. But it's certainly violence against women. In the same way, when a group of aggressors - which, today in Africa, increasingly includes women - walks into a village, sex-segregates the population, and massacres only the men, that is an instance of gender-based violence against men, that is men being killed BECAUSE they are men. I'm not just making this up, this is how sources talk about it, and for massacres specifically sources group such massacres together under the title gendercide (a word that was invented by a feminist, by the way, who said "the term also calls attention to the fact that gender roles have often had lethal consequences, and that these are in important respects analogous to the lethal consequences of racial, religious, and class prejudice."--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"Gendercide" is Adam Jones (Canadian scholar)'s term. Do you notice his association with AVFM? And you're saying that such can't possibly be MRM promotion? The Boko Haram example is another favorite MRM idiom [11]. And yet you still plead ignorance to this? jps (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Jps, please try to catch up. Gendercide was created by Mary Ann Warren. I don't know what he does for AVFM, but at the category page I've provided a number of other sources that cite and work off of Jones' work. If you don't like Jones, then bring him to the RS noticeboard and ask if his work is a RS. The fact that some entity you doesn't like says the sky is blue does not render the sky non-blue, and the fact that some MRM supporters have made claims about violence against men does not mean those claims are wrong. I'm not using any MRA literature to defend my claims. What literature are you using to defend yours? Oh, I forget. You don't need sources. You have your infinite wisdom. Your lack of sources is starting to make your argument look worse and worse.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Co-opting terms is what tiggers do best, I suppose. But the point is simply that you hit all the notes from the MRM chorus. Yet you feign ignorance of this. It's easy to see what you are doing by looking at your contributions and simply seeing that every single one of your favorite sources is quoted by MRAs in other venues to the same ends. jps (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, whether you believe it or not, I'm not their puppet, and I have gotten my sources on my own through my own research. Are you going to bring any sources to the table, whatsoever, ever, in this debate, that support any of the claims you have made, or that contest any of the claims I have made? This is how we work at wikipedia, we go by sources. I've put mine on the table. where are yours? I'm growing rather tired of waiting. It makes me think you are inventing an opposition to this category because of some sort of ideological opposition, even if said opposition isn't supported by sources. That's the classic example of POV pushing, but in this case, it might be you who is pushing a POV. the way to defend yourself from accusations of POV pushing is to bring sources. I'm willing to read them if you bring them, but the sources must be focused on either disproving the claims I made above, OR on proving the claims you made - e.g. violence against men isn't really a thing UNLESS it's directed against all males globally and driven by a hatred of all males globally, otherwise, the topic doesn't exist. I reckon you will have a hard time finding sources so I'll give you 24 hours. After that we can consider that you are pushing a POV unsupported by sources. I'm publicly challenging you jps. are you going to back up your claims? Or are you going to say "you can't prove a negative" or some other cop-out?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this a threat? jps (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it's a challenge. If you aren't able to provide sources that either disprove my claims, or demonstrate yours, then we will consider you to have lost the wiki war. :) Remember, we go by sources here, not opinion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ahem. WP:BATTLEGROUND. You really need to step back from this topic and demonstrate that you can do other things that are worthwhile other than starting duels. jps (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You know what they say about porcine wrestling, JPS? Hipocrite (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Point well-taken. As initiator, I'll just stop this thread.jps (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Obiwankenobi, I see you've reverted jps's attempt to close this multiple times. I’m going to go ahead and reclose because discussion doesn’t appear productive. As I understand it, The point of the fringe theory noticeboard is to get other uninvolved editors to weigh in on whether or not something is a fringe theory or not. The point is not for the two involved editors to go on arguing indefinitely.
I don't think uninvolved editors are going to wade through all this. Obiwankenobi, I hear you that you say your sources are not fringe sources, and in attempt to gain support for that, I’d recommend opening a new section and inquiring others opinions on your sources. It might be best to start with just a few of your best sources, because I don’t think most people have the energy for a huge list, like the one linked above.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tomwsulcer has been adding fringe material written by a rabbi (source is in Hebrew) to the article History of the Jews in Nepal under discussion for deletion here because it doesn't relate to history starting with this.

After that was reverted, he restored the following text, still attempting to establish some historical context on the basis of "speculation" about Solomons concubines, etc.

While as an ethnic group and as a people, the Jews have a long history dating back thousands of years, and while Jewish people have dispersed widely throughout the world, with the Jewish diaspora beginning about the sixty century BCE, it is likely that the region in the Himalaya mountains which is known today as Nepal was not one of these places; according to Birnbaum, it is unlikely there was ever a permanent Jewish community there since Nepal was not directly along the Silk Road, and Nepal's rugged terrain and lack of flat roads made the region unsuitable to trade.[1] However, there is speculation that links the first residents of Nepal to descendants of the concubines of Abraham, as well as speculation that early Jewish influence played a role in the origination of the caste system in Nepal and India, and that the etymological roots of the word Brahmin can be traced to early Jewish origins.[1]

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Birnbaum, Eliyahu. "Nepal: the Land Where Time Stopped (in Hebrew)". Retrieved 28/6/2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
The context here is a deletion discussion about the article History of the Jews in Nepal. I favor keep. Ubikwit favors delete. This notice here is an extension of the battling. The Birnbaum source listed above was added not by myself but by another contributor who favors delete named Ravpapa. It is a site for continuing education for people interested in Jewish history associated with a university. The author of the section was Eliyahu Birnbaum; the particular author was Makor Rishon. The claims made by Birnbaum and Rishon are reasonable: that the permanent Jewish community in Nepal is very small; there is a sizeable annual tourist population (20,000 Jews/year); that historically Jewish influence has affected the region, by descendants of ancient Jews living there. This is not fringe material. In ancient history, there are few written records, particularly in a region such as Nepal, but there has been historical speculation about influences, and when added, the speculation was clearly identified as speculation. Here's the kicker: when the Birnbaum source was added by Ravpapa -- a contributor on the same side as Ubikwit in the pro-delete group, Ubikwit did not dispute the source as fringe material. He accepted it. He did not contest it. He let stand information from the source about the Jewish community being small, with tourist population of 20,000 per year, and so forth. What Ubikwit is doing, essentially, is picking and choosing from within the source, choosing facts he or she likes, and not choosing facts he or she does not like, labeling points which he does not like as fringe, accepting other stuff which he or she likes as acceptable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Easy way to see what's happening. Look at Ubikwit's paragraph above. First few sentences are not underlined. Last sentences are underlined. But it's the SAME source. Birnbaum. Ubikwit just doesn't like what's underlined. Simple as that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Descended from concubines of Abraham" is sheer legend, the scholarly consensus today is that it is highly unlikely that there was ever such a person as Abraham, never mind his concubines. "Sixty century BC", ok, I shouldn't be rude, could be a simple typo but the fact that it has not been corrected indicates to me the level of expertise being employed here. I see "ten lost tribes" in the section header but nothing in the article, anything about the "ten lost tribes" surviving or groups of people descending from them is also nothing but fiction, legend.Smeat75 (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The assertion that a source can be used for everything contained in it in any context is a false premise. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In light of the amount of work I've done on the Ten lost tribes article and the associated reading of the leading works by academics writing on the topic, it is clear beyond question that the statements regarding "speculation about "Solomon's concubines" and the like are baseless and fringe, and that someone would try to introduce them into an article ostensibly about history just exacerbates the issue.
It should be noted that User:Tomwsulcer had initially included another fringe source with the statement

According to one view, it is possible that the Buddha Mundi who grew up in Nepal and became to be known as The Enlightened One was a genetic descendant of the Jews of the Lost Ten Tribes.

That statement is not only fringe but potentially highly offensive toward Buddhism and Buddhists everywhere.
At present only the one fringe sentence remains, but without it the "Ancient history" section is mute.
@Smeat75: Please see the first link from above here for the material that had been included in the first "Ancient history" section introduced to the article by User:Tomwsulcer.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Puh-leeze. Offensive to Buddhists? Come on. About movements of people from the 6th century BCE? The article says this stuff is legendary, speculative, which is only fair, let's not make a mountain out of a molehill.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Well Tom, how would you feel if an American said to you (whom I gather are a Jew), that Abraham was actually a Etruscan, and we have speculation to back it up.
Your POV pushing is reaching extreme limits, and it is readily apparent that you lack competence to edit in this field.
By the way, the Buddha was not a Jew!--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture (again, still)

Acupuncture looks to be flaring up again and could use some experienced eyes to keep the article focused on the most reliable research per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the problems are continuing. QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Radiondistics/Hertzian radiation

An IP user is adding links to a fringe physics site on "Hertzian radiation" to articles on ionizing radiation, antimatter and radio in general. I've reverted the link additions by 194.242.230.21 (talk · contribs) as well as removed an ancient and broken link to the guy's old site on History of radio, but I might have missed some, so keep your eyes open. Kolbasz (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Amen

Seems to be a whitewashing going on at Daniel Amen. He uses his own made up diagnoses (inconsistent with accepted professional, not supported by research etc) for ADD and claims to use SPECT for diagnosis and evaluation of treatment despite a consensus paper from the medical imaging psychiatry community that says there is no support. Multiple sources point out the lack of scientific support but the article is being edited in such a way that Amen's ideas are presented with undue weight and the mainstream consensus is barely mentioned. Amen's assertions are presented as if true etc. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the article seems to have lurched away from the neutral. I have attempted to repair it, and re-added Daniel Amen to my watchlist. Presumably this article is under discretionary sanctions? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There's some odd editing going on. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Dyatlov Pass incident

As I understand it, this can be explained fairly easily through the effects of hypothermia, particularly paradoxical undressing, but no such material appears in the article, which instead plays up the mystery for all its worth, ignoring the accepted explanations. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)°

It's odd that paradoxical undressing doesn't appear anywhere in it, but otherwise it's not that bad.
The lead could lose the "mysterious" and I'm not impressed by the sources I've found on the mountain's supposed Mansi translation (relatedly: the Russian Wikipedia gives the mountain's name as Холатча́хль or Холат-Ся́хыл, which should be transliterated as Kholatchakhl or Kholat-Syahkyl respectively - not Kholat-Syakhl), but otherwise it's ok - stating facts while acknowledging that there's been a whole lot of speculation (and the speculation is what makes this event notable!).
The "Background" and "Search and discovery" sections are both fine.
The "Investigation" section has an uncited paragraph that feels like mystery apologetics and should probably be excised:

It has been claimed that Dubinina was found lying face down in a small stream that ran under the snow and that her external injuries are in line with putrefaction in a wet environment and were unlikely to be related to her death, but photographs of her corpse clearly show her body was found kneeling against a large boulder, away from running water.

The "Theories" section needs better sourcing, but the speculation is usually attributed as claims made by people rather than actual facts. Ditto for "Aftermath".
So all in all: needs improvement but not a fringey disaster. This International Science Times article might work as a source to get the undressing in there. Kolbasz (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Codex Alimentarius and Rima Laibow

Laibow is being pushed into other articles. Does anyone think that this edit] meets WP:UNDUE? Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So...Laibow argues that Codex Alimentarius will result in millions of deaths among the underclass leaving the wealthy elites to survive and rule. Her view is so far out on the fringe that it isn't even on the map of current "controversy" regarding the Codex. I'm removing it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Antimatter comet

Does Antimatter comet rank as "fringe"? My gut feeling is that is should be fringe, but perhaps there really is something genuine. (I came across this because there is currently something close to an edit war at Star of Bethlehem about its having an "antimatter comet" explanation.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's fringe. Under normal Physics, any significantly-sized antimatter object would be no more detectable in the visible spectrum than an equivalent normal-matter object. The main difference would be that it would have been annihilated by the interstellar medium and interplanetary medium (giving off vast quantities of gamma rays, invisible to the naked eye) long before it got anywhere near the Earth. Kahastok talk 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection for Star of Bethlehem. The Antimatter comet article clearly needs substantial work to comply with policy - assuming that the subject meets notability criteria at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be one editor trying to insert his material into the article, almost certainly using IPs as well. I've warned him that he will be blocked if this continues and semi-protected the page for 3 days. Let me know if there are further problems please. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
See "Is Kahoutek an anticomet?" in the New Scientist, 10 Januray 1974.[12] Vladimir Rojansky was an actual physicist who published his theories in the academic press, but they gained no support. So in a sense it is fringe, especially when it forms part of the theories on non-academics. But it differs from most fringe theories in that it was presented as scientific theory while most fringe theories, such as ancient astronauts and free energy, could never be argued even as remote possibilities in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

More BoM history fringe

See WP:RSN#SPS being used at Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

changed link since section was renamed. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

History of alien abduction claims

Does anyone feel like cleaning this up? It relies heavily on something by "skeptic Peter Rogerson" whhich was on a now defunct personal website and which I can't find. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That website has moved here [13], cf. the snapshot on the archive [14]. --92.4.162.106 (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so it was originally published in Magonia (magazine). Ok. I guess he's used in various books as a source, maybe it's ok. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

At first sight the introduction looks strange. Isn't the article suppose to describe what it is about? It also seems excessive to have the word "claims" at the end of the title. It is the main article for the history section of Alien abduction rather than Alien abduction claims. A shorter title seems preferable.84.106.11.117 (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then it would suggest there was really a history of alien abduction. Which of course we can't so. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the current introduction is OK, or it is no worse than the rest of the article. Now Look What You've Done (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why the article is using a Magonia (magazine) article as its linch pin when scholarly sources [15] are readily available. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One (Ra material)

This article has a variety of fringy sources and the books are pretty fringy in general. I encourage analysis in seeing if this article qualifies as a fringe theory along with its sources in its deletion review. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Convenience link: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#The_Law_of_One_.28Ra_material.29. jps (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
A bit of off-wiki coordination at the L/L Research forum dedicated to promoting the Ra material. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There also seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a reliable, independent source [16]. This has led to removal of even basic questioning of the verifiability of IONS, for example: [17]. jps (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Now it's shown up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (Ra material) (3rd nomination) - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A unique argument for an external link was made:[18]. Apparently it's in the best interest of Wikipedia to link to a donations notice. Since the AfDs sank, it would be nice if someone would try to find some sources about this in the non-true-believer literature. jps (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Even more interesting argumentation: [19]. jps (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The IP geolocates to Turkey. Is the username found on this Turkish Twitter account a coincidence? I think not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It's been 15 days already and still have no company? May be you should try to post on bring4th forum to draw some attention? Or it may just be due to summer. 88.233.246.5 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't really care what you Law of One guys do off wiki, but if you're socking or IP hopping to avoid 3RR there may be trouble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You should always assume good faith WP:AGF. Ok, let's look at how "WP:FRINGE" and "IONS" argumentation by scienceapologist was responded: [20]. Logos5557 (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Related: WP:RSN#Institute of Noetic Sciences and a source weakly connected with it. jps (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Burning on Fort Itaipu Sentinels

Burning on Fort Itaipu Sentinels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this event notable? If so, can someone clean it up?

jps (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning on Fort Itaipu Sentinels - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

There seems to be a very very very long discussion going on about whether the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent over 550 years, which one historian apparently claims killed more people than any other conflict in human history, is a fringe theory or not. If anyone would like to take a look at this and let the people involved in the conversation know whether or not this counts as a fringe theory or not, it would help things along. ThanksMonopoly31121993 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me that, even if true, the sheer length of time would make it almost meaningless to treat it as a single event forr these sort of purposes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. ''Sitta kah'' (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Osteopathy

In the last 24 hours or so, a COI ed and an IP have slashed and burned so much that we now have a brochure, rather than a wiki article. I'd just go back a couple of days before they attacked, but I'm a coward, and thought better minds might take a look. Thanks -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked the edit history. I think we should go back to this version before the counterproductive edits began. QuackGuru (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have made the change, but the article could use a lot of work even afterwards. The United Kingdom section seems to take a source that says little, and expand it into entire paragraphs on how one fact means that it's recognised, or now available on the NHS (in some regions, not named, and based on a claim on a pro-osteopathy site) Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of primary sources in the article but that is too much work for me. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Trindade Island's UFO

The Trindade Island's UFO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this notable? If it is, can you help clean it up?

jps (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say it is worth noting... but I don't know if it is WP:Notable enough for its own stand alone article (very few sources are cited... but I have not really looked to see if there are others out there). It strikes me as a good example of a topic that would be best merged into some appropriate related article rather than deleted outright. I note that many think it a hoax... so perhaps it could be mentioned at UFO#Famous hoaxes. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's a hoax, or a mass hallucination. Otherwise, major changes will need to be made to the earth's history. Why do we even contemplate leaving such rubbish lying around? HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the topic is just notable enough to fit somewhere in Wikipedia (e.g. Random House book, Simon & Schuster book, Popular Mechanics article, brief mention in 1980 UPI article), however, I haven't looked at it enough to decide whether or not it should have its own article. Regarding the sources in the article, is Martin J. Powell notable enough among UFO people to be considered a reliable source? Location (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Where a topic is short of notability, and it's fringey, I'd rather err on the safe side; the scarcity of independent, reliable, mainstream sources makes it difficult for us to sustain a neutral article which puts claims in the proper context. bobrayner (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a stand-alone article would likely be troublesome. Where there is trivial coverage, a cited blurb under UFO sightings in Brazil#1958 might be warranted. Location (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The article name is obviously wrong, so wrong that a redirect is probably not even a good choice. What might work well is if someone spins off the usable content into either UFO#Famous hoaxes or UFO sightings in Brazil#1958. After that, we can just take it to AfD and say that it is only notable enough to include in other articles and the redirect doesn't make sense per WP:ARTICLENAME. jps (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

More from the same garden. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Started weeding. Help would be nice. Perhaps some of this can be saved, but I can't figure out which:
The Portugal Air Force article is perhaps next on deck. I'm still looking into that one.
jps (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Aliens

See Talk:Ancient Aliens#‎Detailing the Commentators/Researchers that have participated in this project. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Autism Research Institute

Serious whitewashing of fringe claims with the assertion that discussion of fringe claims doesn't explicitly reference the subject. Apparent misinterpretation of NPOV and lack of understanding of DUE and FRINGE. Fairly important as dangerous and ineffective fringe theories are presented and any discussion of the mainstream academic consensus on these theories is being excluded. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've replied here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't care to engage too deeply in the debate (hence the reply here), but something strikes me that the current version is not worded neutrally in that it excessively leads the reader. For example: "[ARI] also suggests chelation therapy, a treatment which is dangerous enough to have caused multiple deaths.[8][9][10][11]" and "The Institute has advocated this dangerous treatment.[9][10][11]" I've also noticed that various primary sources are used in the article, however, the only ones that are alert tagged as such are the ones that appear to support ARI. Location (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with describing chelation therapy for autism as dangerous very clearly nor ARI being a proponent of it. It is not FDA approved for the treatment of autism, the NIH study into chelation for autism was halted due to risk without commensurate benefit, there have been multiple deaths, the practitioners who had patients die from chelation are frequently identified with the DAN! program of ARI, the ARI has advocated for this treatment and included it in material they have produced. Not sure what your identifying as primary sources other than those tagged, specifics would help. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I know you don't see a problem with your edits, but you came here for other opinions and you got one. It's all true, but it doesn't appear neutrally worded to me and the way you have constructed the article without secondary sources discussing ARI borders on WP:SYNTH. In fact, where is the mainstream commentary about ARI that the editor below has mentioned? Re: primary sources. Take a look at the Reference section and it should be obvious. If the article is about Autism Research Institute, then autism.com/ARI citations are primary sources. Location (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the primary sources are OK for supporting that ARI makes certain claims, statements and holds positions per WP:Verifiability § WP:ABOUTSELF. As a note in my editing of the article I added clear identification of the sources coming from ARI as such. I am also pretty sure that per WP:NPOV § WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE any such claims must have the mainstream academic consensus presented. For example three primary sources from ARI itself support that ARI is a proponent of chelation therapy as a treatment for autism (and an additional secondary source BTW). As the fringe theory of chelation therapy as a treatment for autism as advocated by ARI is presented, the current medical knowledge on chelation as a treatment for autism must be presented per NPOV § DUE and MEDRS. Where is the synth? If ARI is a proponent of phrenology for diagnosis of autism would you assert it is SYNTH to include the medical consensus on phrenology even if none of the sources on phrenology specifically mentioned ARI's advocacy or using phrenology to diagnose autism? If an organization asserted ships would fall of the edge of the earth would you exclude the fact the earth is not flat if none of the sources for the lack of flatness of the earth mentioned the organization or ships falling of the edge of the earth? If ARI were to claim say, that vaccines cause autism would you propose that the claim that vaccines cause autism should not have the mainstream academic consensus about vaccines and autism presented if none of the sources on vaccines and autism mention ARI's claim? I think that is required by NPOV and MEDRS.
The article could clearly be improved using the high quality secondary sources I identified on the AfD (Eyal 2013, Rajan 2012 and Silverman 2011 specifically). My edits were primarily to identify the primary sources, limit the overly self serving claims and provide MEDRS compliant information on biomedical content. I didn't add the ARI/autism.com sources I modified the references to clearly indicate the origin (or fix broken links, accurately reflect, etc.) A series of substantial edits were made by other editors using those primary sources. I don't own the article and largely don't care about the content as long as policy is adhered to. Cutting out any content sourced inappropriately from primary sources is fine by me. I am a strong advocate for adherence to MEDRS and FRINGE (which would mandate identification of chelation as dangerous [BTW secondary sources identify doctors who are linked to ARI and using the practices they teach in relation to deaths from chelation]). If you or another editor can provide more "neutrally worded" phrasing that complies with policy go for it. It occurs to me that there is frequent misunderstanding of NPOV in that the positions put forth clearly in secondary sources should be presented as in the sources, not modified according to editors' notions of neutrality. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree, no problem with relaying the mainstream commentary (which puts ARI in rather a bad light, but so be it). Relatedly, the article on the founder of the ARI, Bernard Rimland, does have some neutrality issues. Perhaps these articles might be merged in any case? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The article on Rimland does indeed need some work. He may stand on his own as his work before founding ARI was highly influential and his story is told in many sources. I see there is strong overlap but ARI/DAN! is substantially notable independent of Rimland despite the fact that until his death he essentially was ARI. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A2 milk

An editor did a huge rewrite of A2 milk. A2 milk seems like a weird marketing gimmick promoting the supposed health effects of this milk. I don't have the energy to argue with the editor. Maybe someone else can explain that we need better sources for this. Bhny (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the second post I have found in what seems to be a growing trail of noticeboard alerts by Bhny about my article rewrite. Bhny has made no attempt in either case to alert me that he is raising my edits as a subject of these discussions. His complaint at this noticeboard reveals a fair bit about his own extraordinary prejudice against a milk product that now accounts for 8 percent of the Australia fresh milk market by dollar terms, or 9 percent of all Australian supermarket milk sales (see this story or this one, both in the Melbourne Age newspaper.) That's quite some "fringe". In the process of, and since, his kneejerk reversion of the entire article:
  • Bhny dismissed it as making "health claims based on anecdotes and a few primary sources", which is is patently wrong. The article covers a wide area including the history that led to the creation and commercialisation of this product, and a brief background on A1/A2 milk and the variants between countries and herds.
  • His edit summary [21] claimed "much of this 'evidence' is from a single book, anecdotes or primary sources", yet the article also cites more than 40 separate news reports from Australia, New Zealand and the UK, a small proportion of the wide media coverage the milk, and the issue of A1/A2 milk, has had.
  • His repeated claim that "There still seems to be no consensus that A2 milk is somehow better than A1"[22][23] implies that that is necessary before the article is expanded.
  • He dismisses Professor Keith Woodford's Devil in the Milk as "probably useless as a source", evidently without the faintest knowledge of the book or the author's credentials.
  • He labels my edit as "controversial", though there had been no prior discussion.
My edit [24] was broad-ranging and well-sourced, substantially improving an article whose talk page flags it for poor grammar, structure, sourcing and coverage. I have begun engaging civilly with editors on the talk page and accept that my lack of familiarity with WP:MEDRS has led me to include coverage of some scientific studies that shouldn't be there. Those issues aside, the rest of the article fully complies with Wikipedia policies on editorial neutrality, sources and verifiability. It concerns me that rather than collaborate to improve the article, Bhny is now canvassing support, without alerting me, for his campaign against what he calls a "weird marketing gimmick". BlackCab (TALK) 11:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
A quick glance at this version of the article reveals it has some very fringey and poorly-sourced biomedical content (specifically on autism) and this justified an emergency revert in my view. Of course, a more selective revert is better but there's not always time. The excellent is the enemy of the good, and all that ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Fringe science that has evidently sneaked out of some well respected science institutions and found its way into peer-reviewed journals! Cunning devils. As I said, I wasn't aware of MEDRS requirement for secondary sources: other articles, even on exercise, rely heavily on similarly primary-sourced research and I took that as my guide, but I've since located secondary sources for all the science in the first part of the section dealing with the health concerns about A1 beta-casein. But "weird"? I don't think so. Possibly too many "quick glances" are the issue here. BlackCab (TALK) 12:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The have been no MEDRS sources added to the A2 Milk health claims. There as been much discussion on talk:A2 milk about this. Keith Woodford's book would not be a MEDRS source unless the content were previously published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Bhny did not mention you directly, so by what's at the top of this page, notifying you was not required. Notifying you would perhaps have been equitable. Jim1138 (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You have found the only two posts, there is no growing trail. This topic is partly fringe and partly Med, hence the two posts. This isn't the place to discuss my behavior. Try WP:ANI Bhny (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "His complaint at this noticeboard reveals a fair bit about his own extraordinary prejudice against a milk product that now accounts for 8 percent of the Australia fresh milk market by dollar terms, or 9 percent of all Australian supermarket milk sales (see this story or this one, both in the Melbourne Age newspaper.) That's quite some "fringe"" If you think your comment in any way justifies this milk as not being fringe you are wrong. Level of sales or popularity among the general public does not make scientific claims non-fringe. creationism or astrology being the typical examples. Second Quantization (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Mythological events listed as massacres

Does that make sense?

[25].

jps (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there are arguments for and against putting mythical massacres into a category of massacres; but that's not the problem here. There seems a different issue at stake, which is not about fringe theories, per se bobrayner (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
And a particular POV. I have restored it to the ungendered general category, as "men" is perhaps wrong. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
So should Texas Chainsaw Massacre also be so categorized? Shouldn't we stick to real massacres? jps (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Difference between mythology and fiction. Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
And you have provided nothing to indicate this is either, but have simply cast apparently uninformed judgmental aspersions. If you are capable of doing somethin beyond unsupported pontification, User:Guettarda, please do so otherwise, please refrain from disrupting things with such unsupported, prejudicial, and, possibly, completely, unresearched pontifications. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What? John Carter, I have no idea that the heck you're talking about? I was simply drawing a distinction between mythology and modern fiction. While it's reasonable for you to disagree (ie, you may not see a distinction between mythology and modern fiction) my position is eminently reasonable. I find your response especially strange given that in substance (should this be in cat:Massacres or not) you're agreeing with my proposition - that regardless of what literal truth value you place on this story, it's still reasonable to place it in cat:Massacres simply because of its cultural significance. Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
In literary criticism, but not when it comes to whether something actually happened. In that case the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the Massacre of the Innocents are both things for which there is no reliable historical evidence for them occurring. jps (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, it is the opinion of many Christians that questioning whether an event that is only attested to in the Book of Matthew and nowhere else is an anti-religious POV. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#Attempt to categorize New Testament events as fictional. That together with MRA advocacy makes this whole business difficult to navigate. jps (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

jps, you are being naughty - two straw men at least! Springnuts (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The academically well-regarded Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible contains a 2-paragraph article on the subject. It acknowledges Matthew as the sole source for this particular story, but also mentions the generally-trusted Josephus "does recount similar instances of Herod's violence and paranoia." That article also states the "total number could not have been more than 20 boys under the age of two." It also mentions similar events in the OT. There is no mention of the tale being a myth, but there are in that source indicators that the story may have been overplayed and exaggerated, maybe beyond recognition. Having said that if reference sources on mythology, none of which I have access to today, call it a myth, clearly we can too.John Carter (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty strong argument for not categorizing it with categories that include events that are verified to have happened. jps (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, and I say this because I haven't checked are you sure all the others in the category are verifiable events? I can think of a few massacres including a similar one by King Arthur whose verifiability is dubious and FAIK one or more of them might be included. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've checked both categories. Category:Massacres and Category:Murdered children. jps (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, if we're to count massacres reported in religious accounts, we'll surely be topping the list with Galactic Overlord Xenu's massacre of hundreds of billions of galactic citizens in Earth volcanoes 75 million years ago. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Consciousness after death

A lot of fringe claims keep being re-inserted into this article. Deepak Chopra being cited as consciousness surviving death from a quantum soul. I think the fringe claims should be removed. Let me know what you think. Goblin Face (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Deepak must be correct on this, after all, he did invoke the magiQue word. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Lewis Hollander Jr.

A fringe proponent who allegedly attempted to weigh the soul of animals, his paper published in a paranormal journal. Only fringe sources on the article apart from Mary Roach's book but she only discusses him on one page of her book. An internet search reveals nothing. I don't think this guy is notable enough to have an entire page on Wikipedia about him. Goblin Face (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

He's already mentioned at Soul#Weight of the soul, as is Duncan MacDougall (doctor), who looks to be marginally more notable, but it looks to me like both could have their content moved to that section and the bios deleted or maybe merge both to a new Weight of the soul without loss of data. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Delete or redirect to Soul#Weight of the soul for now. As interesting as it is, an obscure rancher who put out one paper in a fringe-pushing parapsychology journal would fail any remotely applicable test (e.g. WP:BIO, WP:NBOOK, WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF). Location (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In all fairness, the article Navalia is utterly insignificant. It is about a place (polis/oppidum) mentioned once by Ptolemy in the Geographia and that's all the mentions in classical literature. At some point one "Willem Mateboer" (not a historian, AFAIK) [26] associated this Navalia (there are others, like wharfs on the Tiber river mentioned by Livy) with the Dutch town of Genemuiden. This suggestion was followed by Rolf1981 (talk · contribs) when he created the article. This was removed by Notum-sit (talk · contribs) at which point a (slowmotion) editwar ensued, mirroring (in a mild form) the goings on on the Dutch Wiki.

The "source" used is a 17th century map by Isaac Tirion, which, obviously is not a RS for associating any Roman name with any town. This has been explained to Rolf1981 on the dutch wiki. Also a book called "Excerpta Romana" is mentioned and though it does mention Navalia, it provides no link to Genemuiden. Another important point seems to be the association of this Navalia with the nabalia flumen (the river Nabalia) mentioned by Tacitus (Historiae V, 26). There is, however, no evidence that the two are linked in any way.

Earlier this year I bacame aware of this article and found it nonsense, since Genemuiden does not have any archeology at all from Roman times. I decided to rewrite the articles (on both wiki's) to reflect what little is known and provided ample sources. Afterwards a slow-motion editwar started (and still continues) between me (trying to keep the nonsense out) and a couple of anons trying to get it back in. I'm confident at least some of these IP-addresses are in fact Rolf1981, since he cannot resist poking his nose at me on nl.wiki. Some might be meatpuppets.

I am not eager to get a 3RR-warning or engage in an editwar, however slow it is. Please advise. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not me who started a edit war, but Kleuske herself. It is clearly mentioned that Genemuiden is only one of the theories about Navalia. That's it! For some reason Kleuske takes it very personally and started insulting right away, for which she got a warning/advise to stop by the board on the Dutch wiki. As you can find on the comment page on Dutch wiki-Navalia I have been very polite all the way, which unfortunally cant be said about Kleuske. Regards, Rolf1981 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC) (sorry for spelling, no time!)
Violates WP:FRINGE " For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter". Open and shut case unless reliable secondary sources are forthcoming (your comments against Kleuske is besides the point, this is a content board), Second Quantization (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

L. Fletcher Prouty

I have a couple questions about how to approach content related to L. Fletcher Prouty. First, the article states:

Prouty subscribed to the theory that oil is not derived from fossils but from carbon deposits deep within the Earth (abiogenic petroleum origin theory).[citation needed]

I am unable to find any reference to this in what would normally be considered "reliable sources". There is a YouTube interview of him in which he does state this, but there is none of the usual information provided about who interviewed him, where he was interviewed, or when he was interviewed: [30]. Secondly, should The Secret Team and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy be redirected to the article on Prouty? I am unable to find enough information for the independent notability required in WP:NBOOK. -Location (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of interest?

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Revisit the question of the name of the article

Please add an even number of pennies, if you would.

jps (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Myofascial meridians

The article is asserting some dubious/fringe concepts as fact, and the sourcing is scratchy at best. Wondering if this is salvageable? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I just proposed that the article be merged into Acupuncture. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It's pseudoscientific piffle which should probably be deleted, not merged. It's not in anatomy books and is pretty much unknown, as it should be. A very fringe idea. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd also support a delete. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd support delete unless there are some sources that haven't been found. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion at acupuncture talk resulted in no consensus to merge. Recommending AFD for Myofascial meridians. The article is littered with primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see ANI NB and 3RR NB. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The AFD discussion has started. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myofascial meridians. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A "good article" with poor editorial control

Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I found a number of instances where "science" was mentioned in the article including a peculiar claim that qi energy had been scientifically measured and that the pseudoscientific nature of the teachings of this religion was somehow an example of political machination rather than identifying claims that simply have no empirical basis. I wonder if this article should be reassessed at the very least.

jps (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, after having read the book cited and trying to conform to what was actually written, the previous wording was restored. [31]. I admit I may not have written the best sentence ever, but the previous sentence is not at all an accurate picture of the machinations that were associated with these "scientific" claims of measuring qi. jps (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's under discretionary sanctions, and is to my eyes maybe one of the biggest pits for POV pushing we've got. Maybe go to WP:AE? And I think the more unbiased eyes that topic can get the better. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Scott Tips

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Tips. This will be the 3rd AfD of articles created by the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

STS-48#UFO.2FIce_particles_controversy

A fringe journal's conclusion that some anomalous UFO thing happened is being given equal footing to NASA's explanation that it was only some ice particles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no independent reliable sources referring to this specific event as a controversy, the author of the article and the publisher of the short-lived journal are the same person (fails WP:SPS), and I cannot find that this specific event is even mentioned in Plait's book. Not sure if other sourcing from the usual UFO crowd is enough to state what they allege. Location (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Likely also a case for WP:ONEWAY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting indeed.. Carlotto's analysis is about sts-80 footage/incident, not about sts-48; the two are different missions. Therefore, Carlotto's comment that "the objects U1 and U2's being ice particles or other relatively small objects in close proximity to the orbiter to be the most likely explanation" is irrelevant for this specific case. We don't need any independent reliable source to classify this specific event as controversy, for we are intelligent beings and can reach a deduction ourselves when there are completely opposite POVs about the incident/event (a deduction which is not SYNTH/OR). sts-48 incident is covered in Plait's book, pages 208-209; it is also evident from google books. Pdf copy of the book is here. It's better to copy the text here also, in case the link becomes dead:
"People who should know better make this mistake as well. Take Dr. Jack Kasher, for example. He is a physics teacher at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He believes that UFOs are in fact spaceships populated by aliens. His claim to fame involves a bit of footage from STS 48, a Space Shuttle flight from 1991. During the mission the cameras were pointed down, toward the Earth. The cameras used at night are extremely sensitive and can see outlines of the continents, even in the dark. In the now-famous footage, we see specks of light moving in the camera’s field of view. Suddenly, there is a flash of light. One of the specks then makes a sharp-angled turn, and another shoots in from off-camera, going right through where the other speck was. Kasher claims that this is evidence of alien spacecraft. The first point of light is an alien ship. The burst of light seen is the flare from a ground-based missile launch or a secret test of a Star Wars defense. The second point of light is the missile or beam weapon itself. The first dot, the alien ship, then makes an evasive maneuver to avoid being blown back to wherever it came from. According to Kasher, the film has captured an interplanetary battle. Needless to say, I disagree with him. So do a lot of other folks. These include Shuttle astronaut Ron Parise and space program analyst James Oberg. Both have discussed what really happened on STS 48. The specks of light are actually bits of ice floating near the Shuttle. The particles of ice form on the outside of the Shuttle on every mission, and can get jolted loose when the rockets fire. Once separated, they tend to float near the Shuttle. The flash of light seen was a vernier rocket, a small rocket that controls the direction in which the Shuttle points. It does not generate much thrust, which is why you don’t suddenly see the Shuttle moving during the burst. (Kasher claimed that a rocket firing would obviously move the Shuttle but neglected to research just how much thrust the rocket gave off.) The rocket burst hitting the first bit of ice is what suddenly changes its course, and the second bit of light flashing by is simply another ice particle accelerated by the rocket. If you look at the footage closely, you can see it doesn’t actually get very close to the first particle, making this a poor demonstration of Star Wars technology. Kasher has made quite an industry of going on TV shows and showing this footage, which he clearly does not understand. He even sells a video of his analysis of the footage ($29.95 plus shipping and handling). I’d save my money if I were you." Logos5557 (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Real sts-48 analyses are here and here. And, what the conclusion or discussion of any analysis is, is not a factor for notability, as we all know. The existence of such analyses is the proof of notability. Logos5557 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pdf; I think I searched "STS-48" with a hyphen. The analyses above are not proof of notability in that the source for those analyses, New Frontiers in Science, is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. Location (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

My search with hypens had given this. What makes you think that, New Frontiers in Science is not a reliable source? Should you volunteer to list it in reliable sources noticeboard, there arises a considerable possibility to increase the number of opinions. Logos5557 (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the information provided here, NFS appears to have published less than 20 articles by about 13 different authors. Six of those articles are by the journal's editor-in-chief, and at least two others appear to be reviews of the editor-in-chief's work. I don't see a list of reviewers for this journal, and it is a reasonable assumption that whatever peer-review process it may have had was likely to be in-bred. NFS lasted one year/four issues and the editors essentially admit that mainstream journals won't publish their stuff and that they believe the "scientific establishment" censors discussion on scientific "anomalies". There is no doubt that this is a fringe source. Reliable sources are to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I don't think we can say that about this journal. Location (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
NFS is definitely fringe. There's no "controversy" about ice particles vs. UFOs in reliable sources, so it's undue in the STS-48 article. If needed, a brief explanation sourced to Plait's book can be mentioned at UFO sightings in outer space. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
And which policy or guideline says that fringe sources are not reliable? Let me remind WP:BIASED once again. There is definitely a "controversy"; these sources, which you prefer to call fringe, prove that. Plait's book is itself sufficient for notability; it reveals the earliest pieces of the controversy, Dr.Kasher, James Oberg, their contradicting views/analyses, Kasher's tv appearances etc. I didn't know all these stuff, for instance. Majority of the people visiting sts-48 article, or googling "sts-48" phrase, have been after the ufos, not after the mission highlights (we can simply compare article traffic statistics of sts-48 with another mission which is free from any ufo incident). The current text is very brief and does not even cite/mention Dr.Kasher. Should you still have some doubts, I would recommend reliable sources noticeboard. Logos5557 (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Fringe sources are only reliable for what the authors believe. Nothing more. If there isn't independent notice of what the authors believe, there is likely to be no way for us to meaningfully discuss such subjects in Wikipedia jps (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Rarely even that. Mostly, they are only reliable for what the authors say. They might believe it, but for all we know it could be an outright fiction. For instance, "In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in the Dialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat." While sometimes words are just wrong, at other times, they are intentionaly deceptive. We cannot presume that primary sources are written in good faith. Period. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Plait's book is an independent reliable source, which determines the notability of this controversy, as outlined in WP:FRIND. The analyses published by the organization, which is identified as fringe by some, can serve as additional sources. The above mentioned opinion that those analyses establishing the notability can be given up, on the grounds that those analyses came after the very first controversy between Kasher and Oberg (and perhaps authors of the analyses were also aware of Plait's book as well), which practically means that notability had already been established beforehand when those analyses were published. Logos5557 (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about ARBPSCI

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Pseudoscience.

I don't think ArbCom should be dictating content. YMMV. Feel free to comment.

jps (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they are dictating content.We are free to ignore everything they thought at that arbitration case. Second Quantization (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we are free to do that, but considering that other people here seem to think it pertinent, it might be nice to have rid of it once and for all. jps (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I do find it quite strange that people insist on clinging to ArbCom's pearls of wisdom as if they have a clue about demarcation. They're a disciplinary group, their role is behavior (by policy). Second Quantization (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

UFOs in the Canary Islands

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1976 Canary Island UFO sighting.

jps (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs

Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs (2nd nomination).

Note that this article has been tagged for improvement since it survived its last AfD in 2009.

jps (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this article notable?

Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having a hard time figuring out what makes this particular UFO case notable. It's true that UFO believers tend to fawn over the accounts of pilots, military officers, and other professionals, but that does not to me seem a reasonable justification in light of our policies. Additionally, the article seems very overlong. jps (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If I haven't already stated it previously, the trouble with these articles is that they always seem to be written as though there was an actual incident instead of presenting the information as a claim made by someone. As an example, there is a document in which he alleges he was ordered to shoot down the UFO,[32] but is there a document from someone else stating that they ordered him to shoot down the UFO? Maybe there is, but I cannot find the primary source document that appears to be the foundation of the article (it's likely somewhere in the October 2008 section here). There does seem to be mainstream coverage of the pilot's claims (e.g. [33]), so I think there is probably enough reliable material regarding the claim to pass WP:GNG. Location (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not very good at writing these articles. The source you linked to seems to me to be sensationalist nonsense of the sort that we warn against using in WP:NFRINGE, but I acknowledge that I myself have a hard time understanding why certain UFO incidents become obsessed over and others disappear into oblivion. It's part of the phenomenon which is not well explained even on our pages on the subject. jps (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say, the coverage in List of UFO sightings would be enough. Haven't checked all the references (majority of which do not seem RS), but the first one makes this case barely notable. Traffic statistics seems suffering interestingly high compared to roswell. Should definitely be summarized; personally I do not have the motivation to deal with though. Logos5557 (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for their input. On the basis of this discussion, I have started this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter. jps (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin

PhiChiPsiOmega (a user in the past who has caused trouble on parapsychology talk pages) and Brian Josephson both soapboxing on the Dean Radin talk page trying to cause arguments about "skeptics" and their own beliefs about parapsychology. Nothing they say has anything to do with the article. Any eyes on this would be helpful. Goblin Face (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I submit that Goblin Face is equally at fault (I assume directing attention to what editors do is the point of the noticeboard page, assuming it is correctly named), selectively trying to remove items that tend to give a favourable view of Radin. Since when has it been in order to remove large chunks of a current discussion on a Talk page? You can see here (particularly the section Reception) what the page looked like before GF started acting thus. I trust the 'eyes' that look at this section will agree with PsiChi and myself that the discussion is (in the main) concerned with the question of what sources, etc. are appropriate to the article. GF and others give the appearance at least of trying to obscure this essential fact. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with GF's removal. Is the French paper published in a peer-reviewed journal? It appears to be self-published, and if so, should not be included on that basis. Also, the French paper does not discuss Dean Radin and would be off-topic. If it were in a peer-reviewed journal, it should go on parapsychology, at best. Perhaps reopening yet another re-rehash discussion of parapsychology being pseudoscience. Jim1138 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Re your enquiry, I've checked this using Google Scholar, which indicates that the paper concerned has been published on 9 distinct web sites, 8 of which are academic (*.ac.uk), implying (a) it is not self-published, and (b) it can reasonably be classed as notable. Regarding your point that the article does not refer to Radin explicitly, it does discuss research in parapsychology generally, so unless there is some respect in which Radin's work is inferior to that in parapsychology generally its conclusion (that parapsychology is not pseudoscience) would apply equally to his work and thus complement the references (also not published in peer-reviewed journals, if I may be permitted to make the point) that describe his work as pseudoscience. Saying this reference can't be included just because Radin's work is not explicitly mentioned is blatant sophistry. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It was a talk published on a website - not in a science journal. It isn't a paper. It does not mention Radin. You are doing original research which is against Wikipedia policy. We can only cite sources on Radin's Wikipedia article if they mention Radin. It is a waste of time to cite sources that do not mention Radin and then put them on his article. It is like me going onto the Brian Josephson article and using a science paper claiming parapsychology is a pseudoscience, even though the paper does not discuss you. Of course you won't see me doing this. So you shouldn't be doing it either. It is the definition of original research. Goblin Face (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Goblin Face, anyone familiar with science would characterise this as a 'paper delivered at a conference', i.e. a particular kind of paper (here, if you like, is a 'Guide to Conference Papers for Dummies' to bring you up to speed). And I see from the conference announcement that French was one of the principal speakers. I don't know the details of this particular case, but it is quite common in this day and age for the organisers to publish the papers submitted by the speakers on a web site, rather than produce a book of Proceedings or have a Journal publish them, so the fact that the paper was not published in a journal is neither here nor there. By any reasonable criteria (and even according to WP:RS etc.) this paper is of sufficient status to be quoted in the article, whatever some legalistic interpretation going by the letter of the guidelines rather than the spirit of the guidelines might appear to suggest.
And regarding your assertion:

It is like me going onto the Brian Josephson article and using a science paper claiming parapsychology is a pseudoscience, even though the paper does not discuss you

I think it would be perfectly on order for the article to say something like 'one of bdj's interests is parapsychlogy, a subject regarded by some scientists as pseudoscience', quoting a source that doesn't mention me. You seem for some reaaon to have problems seeing this. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not playing your semantic games with you. But ok it's from a conference. What do you do at conferences, you talk! So French has spoken at his little conference thingy and that is that. There is no evidence this is a published paper and it has nothing to do with Radin. So it doesn't matter what he has said because what you are doing is original research (the conference doesn't mention Radin). It isn't going on the article + It is a nice Sunday afternoon so why waste time discussing this? I am busy. Nice try though :) Goblin Face (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You are using Radin's talk page to discuss your personal beliefs about parapsychology or to attack skeptics and accuse editors of having POV, none of this has anything to do with the article. I could easily list diffs here but I can't be asked with this right now. Anyone can read the history of talk-page and see what has been going on. Like I said if you want to discuss Radin's Wikipedia article then go ahead, some of your early posts were on topic but many of your recent posts were not. You are also now using your own talk-page accusing Wikipedia editors of being biased against Radin. This is not productive behavior. Goblin Face (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, then. To stick to the point at issue, whether the talk of parapsychology has any relevance or not to the article, here are the beans. On the page it is asserted that Radin's parapsychological work is 'pseudoscience' (quote: Scientists ... suggest that [Radin] has embraced pseudoscience and that he misunderstands the nature of science). A review by French (himself a noted sceptic) looks into the question of whether this type of work is pseudoscience and concludes that, while it is commonly regarded as such, by the majority of criteria it is science. It is entirely reasonable to include this second opinion, which countermands the opinions found in abundance on this page in the sceptical reviews, but GF, as soon as he can make it (29 minutes later to be precise) deletes the reference claiming it is not relevant (see also comment above, responding to Jim1138). Pfui! I leave it to others to determine if this, which is not untypical of GF's efforts, is acceptable behaviour for an editor. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You have spent some time on this board attacking individuals. This is not a conduct board, this is a content board. Attacking individuals personally is irrelevant to this board. If you have some complaint to make, take it to the correct venue, WP:ANI and WP:AE, while being aware of WP:BOOMERANG, Second Quantization (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have made a number of modifications to address your point, and will consider taking this to an official complaints page as you suggest — thank you for the suggestion. Sorry if I've missed something. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this, I don't see how this source is any less reliable than the (probably inappropriate) citation of Steven Novella's blog on the topic. That said, there are clear WP:SYNTH issues here, as the paper doesn't really have anything to do with Dean Radin (other than the fact that it cites one collaboration between Radin and some mainstream scientists. Not sure what the deal is with the article's talk page - it seems like discussion of this issue has been walled off because the "topic has drifted". 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 12:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Zicam

Just as an FYI - The Zicam[34] article has been nominated for deletion. VVikingTalkEdits 21:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Olmec and a post to my talk page (Pre-Columbian European contact stuff)

See User talk:Dougweller#Olmecs - comments at Talk:Olmec would be nice, and I'm struggling with the out-dated source at Tyrian purple - looks like no one's paid much attention to it. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

She's also unhappy about my revert at Aztec calendar stone. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in my edits to three articles; Aztec Calendar Stone, Tyrian Purple and the Olmec articles. Primarily I want to learn to create Author Profiles. I was encouraged to 'edit' before I 'create' new articles. My primary but not exclusive genre of authors is relative to their academic books on ancient historical mysteries such as Atlantis. I myself am not a scholar on these subjects but I thought I could add to the body of information provided in the sub topics throughout Wikipedia as my 'learning the ropes' entrance. I have read the Wiki pages above and recognize room for improvement even with my minor edits. I suspect I will get many 'bumps' from others, you, on Fringe theories as the entire genre of ancient history mysteries is in essence Fringe theories based on scientific analysis of artifacts. You comments to assist me in my development as an editor are most welcome. Thank you, Peggy Morin-Vilhauer (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Peggy Morin-Vilhauer

I've just been looking at this, since I saw Doug's revert at Olmec, and went on to look at your other edits. The 1909 source seems to posit pre-columbian contact on the basis of a "codex". I've looked at several sources on thew use of purple dyes in the Americas. None seem to think pre-Colombian contact is required to explain it. There is nothing wrong with using old sources if the content is uncontroversial (many pages on Wikipedia are based on the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica), but this source is one old essay that has been picked up by fringe writers to provide "mainstream" support for contact theories. Scouring old archives in this way, rather than building on the latest research, is typical of fringe writers. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Coyame UFO incident

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyame UFO incident (2nd nomination)

I keep working my way through this. Eventually we will have a well-curated list. But we're not there yet.

jps (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Codex Alimentarius

This edit[35] seems to be yet another attempt to add fringe material to this article. So far as I can see from the sources, this violates WP:UNDUE (note that the article for Rima Laibow was deleted at AfD and the article for Scott Tips looks like going the same way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup. More of the same POV pushing from the same contributor... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
SPA POV pushing as pretty much a primary defining characteristic is grounds for sanctions, and I think the time to consider sanctions here as definitely come. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
SPA needs to be discouraged from repeatedly attempting to insert by force fringe-altmed-conspiracy stuff into the wiki. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
SPA now waging a slow edit war at Dipak K. Das to insert superfluous promotion of Scott Tips. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue is really what to do about this editor. Either he doesn't understand our guidelines and policies or doesn't intend to follow them, but either way I don't see him as ever being anything but a drain on other editors. Sorry, no good faith here for this editor. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that was discretionary sanctions are for? - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Refrigerator mother theory

This article seems to be overly sympathetic to the discredited theory. Bhny (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems neutral to me. And rather dull.--Auric talk 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson

I missed the fact that this had been recreated with a different name and thus missed the AfD. It just was closed as Keep, but the article is a mess. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Electronic harassment‎

Addition of reams of poorly-sourced POV-pushing tinfoil-hattery... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it is WP:COPYVIO too -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I wondered about that. Where is it from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I found some of it here but it makes my eyes itch. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

1892 "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- Lord Kelvin 84.106.11.117 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Kelvin wasn't very hot on that one, was he? Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

EmDrive

Claimed thrust machine EmDrive. Needs some real attention, particularly the use of poorly peer reviewed chinese journals. It's full of original research, citing a 1952 article for large sections, Second Quantization (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And, on a related note, Quantum vacuum plasma thruster was recently in the pop sci news. [36]. Seems they were only measuring noise as their control set-up also had unexplained results that weren't supposed to be there. Our article trumpets this fact as some sort of vindication of a new effect. Sigh. jps (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And now this: Talk:EmDrive#Pseudophysics. jps (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

POV-fork masquerading as a list article.

Or so I believe. YMMV.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of arguments for a young Earth

jps (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Light reading...

I thought I'd drop this here, but it may be more appropriate at WT:FRINGE. If so, please give it a move over there. Thanks.

[37]

Wikipedia has been moving more and more toward adopting a presumption of null hypotheses when it comes to WP:FRINGE material. This also explains situations where we preference material that is skeptical over credulous (see WP:FRIND, for example).

I wonder if it might be possible to shore up this emerging characteristic.

jps (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Spartacus Educational

Those familiar with the website might be interested in Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#spartacus-educational.com. Location (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Zhi Gang Sha

Zhi Gang Sha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article requires cleanup. Not sure if it is notable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot help with the clean-up right now, but it looks as though he might squeak by WP:GNG. Location (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Definitely needs some cleanup but as Location said seems like it might manage GNG. Ref #2 is a Sydney Morning Herald article which while very derivative of the Wired article lists some fairly notable attributes. Coverage is thin though, I'd say its borderline. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The link to the Wired article is a deadlink. Coverage is too thin IMO. I am having trouble finding enough reliable sources on the subject. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Archive link here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
That specific link can't be added to the article. My edit was rejected. See my "Edit filter log": "06:45, 9 August 2014: QuackGuru (talk | contribs) triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on Zhi Gang Sha. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: archive.is additions". QuackGuru (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I added the internet archive link to the reference. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is likely notable with the recent fixes. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
He's got an NYT Best Seller and publishes with Simon and Schuster, so he probably meets GNG criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett relativity claims

Viewfinder stated that he/she will not be editing the material that was the subject of Sławomir Biały's original notification. This noticeboard is not the appropriate forum to discuss issues related to user conduct. Location (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jacob Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a dispute over at Talk:Jacob Barnett#Specific details concerning the extent to which the WP:FRINGE guideline applies to claims made in the tabloid media about the subject of the article. The article was the subject of a recent AfD. In the analysis of one editor (User:Agricola44) at that debate, most of the stories on the subject contained questionable claims, like that Barnett had disproved Einstein's theory of relativity, disproved the Big Bang, was tipped for a Nobel Prize, and so on. There is an editor, Viewfinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), over at that discussion page who doggedly denies that such claims were made in the press, despite obvious consensus to the contrary. So as to avoid any appearance of stacking the deck, here is a small selection direct quotes from news articles concerning the subject:

  • Indystar "The numbers that keep him from snoozing are the same that led him to develop his own theory of physics -- an original work that proposed a "new expanded theory of relativity" and takes what Einstein developed even further."[1]
  • Time "12-year old expands Einstein's theory of relativity" and "Could Einstein’s Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he’s got the solutions to prove it."[2]
  • CTV News "he built a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's field of relativity, which was described by a Princeton University professor as ground-breaking."[3]
  • The Blaze "he’s working on an expanded version of [Einstein]’s theory of relativity. So far, the signs are good. Professors are astounded. So what else does a boy genius with vast brilliance do in his free time? Disprove the big bang, of course."[4]
  • Yahoo News "12-year-old boy has new theory of relativity" and "he's about to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity."[5]
  • Huffington Post: "Barnett believes he can prove Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity wrong, TIME reports. Astrophysics professor Scott Tremaine of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton confirms he's onto something. Another project in the works: disproving the Big Bang Theory."[6]

Now, it seems to most editors over there that the mandate of the neutral point of view policy is that, in light of such fringe claims, to assert that they did not hold up under scrutiny. There is at least one secondary critical source on the subject, a blog post by Phil Plait (aka "Badastronomer"), on the matter, available at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/08/a-very-smart-kid-and-a-solid-theory/, that we cite as clear evidence of this assertion. There is another source authored by Steve Novella that we do not cite because it is a self-published source, but that also gives critical commentary on claims made in the media, available here.

I am referring the matter here, because the editor in question seems absolutely to refuse to get the point, starting new discussions with the same old arguments that have already been solidly rebutted by other editors (myself, Agricola44, and User:David Eppstein). Given this persistence, there is very little involved editors can do, and I think it is necessary to involve the wider community in this matter. There was already a thread on ANI a few days ago (in my opinion premature). But since that thread, Viewfinder's continued stubbornness leads me to think that the time for community involvement and possible sanctions has gotten much closer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://archive.indystar.com/article/20110320/LOCAL01/103200369/Genius-work-12-year-old-studying-IUPUI
  2. ^ http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/26/12-year-old-genius-expands-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/#ixzz1HvFA9JaT
  3. ^ http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/15-year-old-jacob-barnett-one-of-the-world-s-most-promising-physicists-1.1479602
  4. ^ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03/25/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/
  5. ^ https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/move-over-einstein-12-old-boy-theory-relativity-20110328-130551-810.html
  6. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/jacob-barnett-12-year-old_n_841577.html
I am astonished that SB has raised the matter here. He insists that he has obliterated my case, in which case my position will have no impact on the Jacob Barnett article. Please do not sanction me. If a neutral party has some helpful advice for me, then I would welcome that. Viewfinder (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Viewfinder, even in this short post you have completely misrepresented the dispute. At least 3 editors have categorically rejected your arguments at the talk page. Still more at the original AfD. Yet you continue to reiterate the same arguments. This is considered to be disruptive editing, and at this point I think sanctions are the only recourse available to get you to accept the consensus and stop wasting everyone's time. Your most recent post, an obvious pretext for rebooting the discussion yet again has convinced me of this. As for your comment here, I think the first law of holes applies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that Viewfinder's brief comment here already exhibits one of his frequent debating tactics, insinuating that anyone who disagrees with him is "non-neutral" and that only opinions from others will be listened to. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I hope it would not be out of order for me to point out that despite SB and others aggressively making his case for the deletion of Jacob Barnett at AfD and DRV, the article was not deleted. What appears to have upset SB and his cohorts is that I am refusing to plead guilty to their charge that I am denying relativity and the big bang, and to support his condemnation of the mass media for their coverage of Jacob Barnett. I have stated my case, he has stated his. We do not agree. I am not editing the article. Viewfinder (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I have added this to the talk page thread: "I think it is time for us to agree to disagree about the media coverage of Jacob Barnett and discontinue this thread. I am not editing the article on this matter." Viewfinder (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that I think that, following admin rejection of its deletion, SB has re-written the article in a manner that slants it against the subject and his mother, and has done so with intent to get the article deleted in the future. But that is my personal view. I have made my case, it is up to others decide whether or not I have made the case that anything in the article should be changed. Viewfinder (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Viewfinder (talk · contribs) persistently either refuses to or can't get the point. He is obsessed with this BLP of a minor to an unhealthy degree. The consequence is an editor who is not basically WP:COMPETENT and impossible to engage with constructively -- and thus is a continual source of frustration to editors who are trying to work this out. My attempts to engage with him have resulted in the very friendly tactic of him sticking his fingers in his ears and going "na-na-na-na-na".
The article if written to WP:NPOV will inevitably be negative due to ridiculous WP:FRINGE claims that do not stand up to basic scrutiny. Viewfinder (talk · contribs) doesn't understand that these claims are WP:FRINGE, and is mightily impressed by them.
My previous suggestion of a topic ban was rejected because he wasn't being rude or making personal attacks, and as we all know around here admins like to skim-read disputes and decide the argument on who loses their temper first. Given proper implementation of policy and correct closure of the 2nd AFD where there was a clear and unequivocal consensus to delete, we shouldn't have an article on this unnotable individual anyway. This is despite Viewfinder (talk · contribs)'s triumphalist clams that the article is notable because it was kept at AFD. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Your previous suggestion of a topic ban was rejected in part because of your refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. More of which is on display here. --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN (talk · contribs) - yes, I am not "dropping the stick". Why? Two reasons: Firstly, this is a BLP issue related to a real-life human being, so it is of importance. The resulting "I don't care" attitude isn't helpful. Secondly, the horse isn't exactly dead; both AFDs resulted in an overwhelming consensus to delete. This should have been sorted out by now. That is isn't reflects very badly on Wikipedia. I predict that this will be back at DRV/AFD very shortly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not the material in question is fringe, it was written in publications that are certainly not fringe. The above contribution includes a personal attack, accusing me of "unhealthy obsession" with a minor. Viewfinder (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Involved editors: This is not ANI. Please take this discussion back to Talk:Jacob Barnett, particularly since Viewfinder stated he/she will not be editing the material in question. Location (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that discussion should be at Talk:Jacob Barnett, but the original notification was well within this noticeboard's remit. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Although Viewfinder (talk · contribs)'s assertion that he's not editing the article is useful, he still needs to stop trying to discuss it on the talk page as that's being disruptive and preventing other editors from doing their jobs because they're being forced to deal with him. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dean Radin (again)

Dean Radin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a debate on this talk-page about a positive review for Radin's book in a fringe journal and if it should be used on the article or not. Any comments, suggestions etc needed. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

TLDR. It would be helpful if you would link to the review and summarize the discussion. WP:RSN is another option. Location (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Basically, they are looking for a source to cite a sentence to: "Radin's work has received great support from parapsychologists" or something of that ilk. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a long debate on the talk-page about "biased" sources and skeptics that I have no interest in, but the original discussion was about a review in a fringe journal (the JSE) and if it should be included or not for Radin's article. Oddly the user who wanted this mentioned has since come out of the closet and openly admitted the journal is unreliable. So I think this has been solved. Goblin Face (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, not solved. Recent edits are working to obscure the division between Radin's work and the mainstream scientific view of such things. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks as though it's been locked down for a bit. I wish I could help but there is so much background that I cannot discern what specific issue(s) need to be addressed. Location (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The basic premise of the impassioned filibustering filling the Talk page seems to be the notion that criticism of Radin derives from biased sources and therefore must be balanced equally with the views of his supporters. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The talk-page has gotten out of hand, it's turned into a debate about parapsychology and if paranormal powers exist not Radin's Wikipedia article. I am not getting involved in it but an admin might need to step in and notify users about this if the forum talk continues. Goblin Face (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man

Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article about a fringe-theory promoting book. References are difficult to trace but appear to be only tangentially related to the subject. The article reads like a WP:ADVERT and it's dense, overlong prose gives undue weight to the claims of it's author. --Salimfadhley (talk)

It has been translated into many languages, apparently, but I'm having a hell of a time finding reviews. The author's bio (Gopi Krishna (yogi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) is pretty atrocious too. Someone should take some pruning shears to them.
In related news: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Consciousness Research.
jps (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

California Naturopathic Doctors Association

Resolved
 – Deleted per CSD WP:A7. Location (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

California Naturopathic Doctors Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I just tagged this stub article with CSD-A7. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion sorting option

Hi All,

It dawns on me that our current system for notifying this board of every AfD is a bit cumbersome. Maybe it would be easier if we had a Fringe Deletion Discussions category and then had an automated list generated at the top of the board? We could then continue to discuss cases where the person wasn't sure whether AfD was appropriate or not.

jps (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but part of the purpose of this is to ask whether something ought to be deleted. this appears to serve two additional purposes (1) it implies that there may be some controversy in the deletion and (2) it gets what I shall refer to as the "fringe experts" notified and motivated because of (1). Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)*That's a good idea. But we should still drop an AfD in progress note onto any discussion thread if/when the article in question is nominated for deletion. The reason for that is that normally once an article goes to AfD we don't want to be discussing its merits, or lack thereof of anywhere else, lest we raise questions of potential canvassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
While I agree in principle with your concern, the notification itself is what would cause canvassing, the issue with discussing here is just splitting up of the discussion/forum shopping. The canvasing issue is real though, I was recently involved in an AFD/DRV where there was an objection to the AFD because a particular wikiproject was not notified (I was not even aware it existed).However, I looked a bit into the history from that project, and every time that wikiproject is notified, every member comes in and floods with keeps. That type of automated canvass is an endemic problem as almost every wikiproject has vested interests or slanted perception of what is (or is not) notable/encyclopedic - often not in alignment with the wider wiki opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have had a couple of similar experiences in AfD where there was a sudden rush of KEEP !votes once word got out to one or another "interested project." It happens and I am not sure there is any silver bullet for it. All we can do is to try to be careful and avoid anything on this board that could be (mis)interpreted as unethical. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Ad Orientem. There's enough "a cabal of WP editors is conspiring against us" paranoia among fringers in the blogosphere already, so no need to stir up more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Another private fringe-theory promoting organization. There seems to be absolutely no references to validate the claims in the article beyond a listing on 'HLC' which appears to be a privately run directory of colleges. I've tagged WP:N but suspect that this could be an AFD candidate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is an accredited college, though that doesn't mean much more than that they are eligible to get federal money and that they have a mission statement that they convinced a committee that they were at least trying to follow. jps (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The claim of Federal accreditation is highly fishy to me. It's unsourced and I don't think accreditation works that way. I always thought the states do that though I am open to correction from someone more knowledgeable on the subject. That and all of the certifying organizations are as bogus as a three dollar bill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, accreditation is a bit of a racket in the US. Accreditation is done regionally by "peer review" which generally means that every three years an institution is subject to scrutiny by other members of the accrediting body. It's easy to check if a college is accredited, and this one is [38]. I do see that this happened.... but that's a rather external point. jps (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
If the accreditation is legit, and given that Wikipedia has granted a near carte blanche presumption of notability to high schools and secondary schools, I don't think AfD is an option here. This one is probably going to have to be heavily edited to try and remove the PROFRINGE and POV tone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
US Department of Education points to Council on Naturopathic Medical Education which lists Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences as an accredited program. In my opinion, the current version of the article appears to be neutrally worded without any claims that warrant a red flag. Location (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I found non-trivial coverage in a reliable source: [39][40]. Not sure how to rate this source: [41]. It's probably enough to warrant removal of the current tag. Location (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I took down the PROD notice. I don't think it can be supported at this point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested in working on the article, but I placed the above links on the talk page for someone else who might be. Location (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bill Murphy (businessman) BLP

Resolved
 – Edited to comply with WP:NPOV -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Bill Murphy (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a BLP of the founder of GATA, a fringe group that has been a major purveyor of conspiracy theories among gold bugs. There has been a persistent and ongoing effort by gold bugs to create and edit articles in ways that promote their views. This appears to be another example. Any suggestions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (2nd nomination). Location (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article has been heavily edited and I believe now passes NPOV. Suggest closing this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas

George Vithoulkas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another WP:BLP about a homoeopath. As with the previous examples, the claims to notability rest almost entirely on self-published and fringe sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is a winner of the Right Livelihood Award automatically notable? jps (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a major award and the sources for the article about it look pretty dicey to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The review of Vithoulkas' The Science of Homoeopathy could warrant a merge/redirect if there is additional coverage of the book. Other than that, trivial news coverage is all I find in what we typically consider to be independent reliable sources. Those sources would warrant at least a redirect to Right Livelihood Award. (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
After a closer look at the award on top of Location's comment above, I think there may be an argument for marginal notability here. The article has significant problems but the award does appear to have some recognition in RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the question is whether or not it is a "significant award" under WP:ANYBIO. I perceive a bit of a contradiction if the award is significant, but the recipient has not received very much coverage in reliable sources. Location (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about the notability of this award Award - I went through the list of recipients and other than Amy Goodman I had not heard of any of them. Any suggestion that it is an 'alternative Nobel' is pure marketing. Indeed, claims in media that this award is in anyway similar to the Nobel Prize seem to have been merely careless repetitions of an advertising strapline --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If I remember rightly, about five years ago, people from his homeopathy school were editing here to promote Vithoulkas a lot, until page protections shut it down a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I recognize more than a few of the award winners including Bianca Jagger and Mordechai Vanunu. Calling it an "alternative Nobel" is certainly a PR-move that should be interrogated, but they aren't wholly obscure. I could even see a possible case for articles about all the recipients, but more research is necessary. Vithoulkas definitely gets mentioned a lot in comparison to some other homeopaths, I'd say. jps (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another AFD in which the question seems to rest entirely on whether the winner of a Right Livelihood Award is inherently notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrikrishna Upadhyay. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that the award qualification criterion (WP:ANYBIO) is a subheading in a section stating "conversely, meeting one or more [of these] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Majestic 12

Majestic 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about "a secret committee of scientists, military leaders, and government officials" that investigated flying saucers. It appears that there is coverage of this in reliable sources (e.g. this book is from an academic source; primary source documentation from the FBI... note "BOGUS"" handwritten over some of the documents), but the article contains quite a few fringe sources and I'm not sure that primary source documentation has been used properly. Location (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't like how the article is written and I'll agree that it has a lot of questionable sources. I assume the "case for/case against" approach is the consensus between the skeptics and the tinfoil types. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Afterlife

There are two sections near the bottom of this article. The parapsychology section is filled with fringe sources (paranormal books and psychical papers) and the science section has fringe claims of parapsychologists like Raymond Moody being cited as scientists, sourced to YouTube videos. There is also Robert Lanza's fringe view about immortality being cited. I think most of this should be removed. Let me know any suggestions about this. Goblin Face (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the parapsychology section needs a complete rewrite to frame the existing collection of theories as minority viewpoints. The science section is much easier to fix, it just needs cleaning out of the Lanza stuff and introducing the concept of NDEs as something that scientists and medical professionals have, in general, tended to be skeptical of. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

META: Move (or link) WP:NFRINGE into the main WP:N guidelines Suggestion

Kindly review my proposal at the WP:N talk-page to restructure the notability guidelines for fringe topics. The rationale behind my change is to make it easier for editors to find the relevant notability guidance for fringe topics which is somewhere buried within WP:FRINGE and not linked to from WP:N as most users might expect. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine

Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject Appears to be a private alt-med clinic with absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability other than a somewhat grandiose sounding name. I've tagged it WP:N, however I suspect that this may be a quick AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A very quick glance suggests AfD is likely the best move. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine --Salimfadhley (talk)
Not sure about this one. Here's a source documenting this and similar schools in Canada]. Here it is mentioned again. As it is here. There may be enough to glean for an actual article here if someone could be careful. jps (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
May not be AfD material but needs the advert trimmed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

SuperConsciousness Magazine

Resolved
 – Deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

SuperCmag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an article that I think probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperConsciousness Magazine. The same use than proceeded to spam that magazine to a variety of articles.

jps (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Question on possible fringe source

FYI: In Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#whowhatwhy.com, I've posted a question on how Russ Baker's WhoWhatWhy may be used in Umbrella Man (JFK assassination). Thanks! Location (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Franck Gordon

Resolved
 – Article was deleted per CSD A-7 -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franck Gordon - created a few years ago by a relative and edited presumably by himself. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jan Scholten

Resolved
 – Article was deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Jan Scholten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And another biographical article about a fringe-theory promoter: This article may be an AFD candidate: I can see no evidence of notability even within esoteric subject of homoeopathy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If he is notable, it's because of WP:AUTHOR. However, I'm not seeing it. jps (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Does not appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or WP:AUTHOR. Location (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to pull the AfD trigger? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Scholten. Location (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Rajan Sankaran

Resolved
 – Article was deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Rajan Sankaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another article about a living fringe theory proponent with very little coverage outside homeopathic or esoteric literature. The best article about him contains a summary of ideas which appear to be an expansion of the homoeopathic concept of 'miasms'. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If he is notable, it's because of WP:AUTHOR. However, I'm not seeing it. jps (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Frequently published by Homeopathic Medical Publishers, which appears to be the name he uses for self-published material. The source noted above appears to be self-published, too. Is there any good target for redirect? Location (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a WP:SOAP situation similar to Rajesh Shah. jps (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree, I cannot see any way this subject would pass WP:AUTHOR since none of his publications appear to be that important, even within the fringe field of homoeopathy. The AFD is strong with this one. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajan Sankaran (3rd nomination) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

New Mexico School of Natural Therapeutics

Reads like a advert for this fringe theory promoting school. I spot-checked some of the sources in the 'press' section which mostly seem to be only tangentially about the subject, those that still existed on the Internet appeared to be little more than articles published by individuals who are associated with the school. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Unlike other schools listed, this is not an accredited institution, but it does seem to have some sources, although there are red links to less-than-likely spin-off articles. More research required, IMHO. jps (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've done enough digging without any luck. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Mexico School of Natural Therapeutics. jps (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears as though this is a type of school for those coming right out of high school vs. those that have some form of undergrad degree. We've seen elsewhere that the CNME is recognized by the US Department of Education as an accreditation body for the practice of naturopathy, so it's interesting that this school would state that they are not accredited because the USDE would make them alter their curriculum.[42] Location (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Krippner

Someone using Krippner's name (could be Krippner himself) has turned up deleting reliable references and adding in parapsychology journals. This may turn into what happened on Russell Targ, so perhaps people can help watch this one. Goblin Face (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ipuwer papyrus

Not sure if this is fringe but I think it is. We have an editor adding their own research (which seems to be something he doesn't understand at all although he says he's read WP:NOR to this article, adding their own parallels between Exodus passages and the Ipuwer papyrus.[43] Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, this is what he cites as his source.[44] Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
And adding the whole table looks like copyvio as well as WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This is definitely notable fringe, and there is a great deal of critical treatment of the thesis. I haven't gone over the article yet, but it could easily be cut down to something brief and balanced, with the ohrnet page as a ext. link for the chart. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Editor is about to be topic banned, see [45]. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Worst fringe article on Wikipedia right now?

Resolved
 – Deleted per WP:BLPPROD. Location (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Ann Druffel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here it is! Ann Druffel and not a single reference!? Goblin Face (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Vast majority was copied from her website, so I removed those portions: [46]. Among reliable source, I could only find one brief mention in a newspaper: [47]. I don't see much need for discussion; redirect to Mutual UFO Network. Location (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup - no obvious evidence of notability as an author. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard Chanfray

Resolved
 – Article was deleted per AfD. Location (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Richard Chanfray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article needs reliable sources for some of it's claims. Does anyone have any suggestions? I have done a few searches and found nothing of any value. Goblin Face (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As always, feel free to strip it to reliable sources. I imagine that he was a French Uri Geller and that you would dig up more in French sources. Location (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this bio meets WP:BIO. Fringe sources give his claims of alchemy some attention, but the only independent source, the "The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars", gives him a one-line mention as an eccentric playboy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Chanfray per my above comment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Rajesh Shah: BLP of a practicing homeopath

Resolved
 – Article was deleted per AfD. Location (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Rajesh Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across Rajesh Shah when I saw that new editor had linked to it from Life Force Homeopathy Clinics. I tried to verify the sources, but most of them are dead links or irrelevant pages. The only one that checked out was this one from the Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy". I would like second opinions on this reliability of this source and the notability of the subject. Thank you.- MrX 13:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly linking to way too many WP:PRIMARY sources. The media sources may not be enough to establish notability for a WP:FRINGEBLP. I'm not sure. jps (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Notability looks questionable. We wouldn't see the publication of a few papers as sufficient evidence of notability in conventional medical research, and proficiency in self-publicity isn't evidence either. I suppose it might be worth checking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, but AfD seems appropriate to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the input. I will probably nominate for deletion then.- MrX 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Editors may wish to review other related articles: Homoeopaths by nationality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable UFO incident?

Resolved
 – Article was deleted per AfD. Location (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Falcon Lake incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What are your thoughts?

jps (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The usual. Guy claims he saw something and the government documents that he claimed it. Some other guy interested in UFOlogy eventually writes about it in a book, but no mainstream sources do. Without mainstream sources discussing the subject, it could be merged to some parent article. Location (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There are no notable UFO incidents. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Aw c'mon see, Roswell UFO incident, that's pretty notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
However in this case, I see no evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay then: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon Lake incident. jps (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz

Resolved
 – Article was deleted per AfD. Location (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This to me looks like a case where a WP:FRINGEBLP is not warranted. I note that more than a few of the sources in the article don't even mention the person! However, I thought I'd put the case here before sending it off to deletion school just in case people know of some sourcing of which I'm not aware.

jps (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of the subject. As you alluded to above, the article appears to exploit tenuous links between Horowitz and Kimberly Bergalis as well as Horowitz and the Jeremiah Wright controversy as a backdoor approach to notability. The bulk of the article is built upon either primary source information or information that does not mention Horowitz. Location (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree I am not seeing RS discussing the subject significantly. There is an entry at The Skeptic's Dictionary here but even adding that to everything already in the article does seem to warrant an article. A quick check of some of the databases I have access to doesn't return anything of substance. I see no reason not to proceed to AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Horowitz (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy

Resolved
 – Redirected as noted below by jps. Location (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In 1964, Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden was imprisoned on bribery charges. Bolden tried to weasel out of it by claiming the charges were trumped-up because he was going to speak to the Warren Commission; he later took a kernel of truth regarding a potential threat by an individual and claimed that he had knowledge of a wider conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy in Chicago. The Warren Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations said "bulls**t", but various conspiracy authors over time have unsurprisingly chosen to believe Bolden. Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy appears to have been built by User:Podiaebba upon those sources, as well as a few mainstream sources that also took Bolden's allegations at face value when he was promoting his book in 2007. According to the talk page, User:Ad Orientem challenged this as an alleged incident, but the challenge appears to have fizzled and the article continues to present Bolden's allegations as fact.

Should this redirect to the section entitled "Allegations of a Chicago plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy" within Abraham Bolden? I have spent a fair amount of time reworking that article, but I have left the lede alone until this can be resolved. Thanks! Location (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be redirected. The current article is trying to present fantasy as though it were true. Not the first time for Podiaebba; I hope that habit has been broken now. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

New Paradigm Films

New Paradigm Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear notable to me, but maybe it does to you?

jps (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And, I should have mentioned, there's a little walled garden: Troll (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Rover (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). jps (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be notable in English sources, but given that this is apparently a Norwegian company, someone would need to check for Norwegian sources to know for sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Although most Norwegian material that is notable tends to end up in English somehow. jps (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a walled garden of promotion with no notability or reliable sourcing. Seems ripe for AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Paradigm Films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (singer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rover (band). jps (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Some strange fringe suggestions on the parapsychology talk-page. Any commentary on this appreciated. Goblin Face (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Religious symbolism of unity of opposites

Resolved
 – Article deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Stuff I made up in school one day, it seems. But maybe not. If you can rescue it, please be my guest! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious symbolism of unity of opposites.

jps (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Health Equation: Health = Nutrients/Calories

Seems to be and mixed up with anti-vax some and questionable dietary concepts, but the fringe nature of the concepts here wasn't (and still isn't) properly apparent. More eyes welcome ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This stuff is important given Whole Foods's implicit endorsement, but my fringe-nutrition-fu is failing: the best even vaguely critical material I could find was from, of all people, Andrew Weil. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I added the third article. It has only two sources both absolutely primary and a search of several resources shows no evidence of notability. The article reads like complete OR by an advocate. I suggest AfD for Nutritarian. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The minimal content on Aggregate Nutrient Density index could be merged to Fuhrman, Nutritarian could be made a redir to Fuhrman also. Then Fuhrman's article could be cleaned up. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)

Needs eyes, just found an editor allegedly fixing pov issues by adding " Some see the work as pseudohistory because it has experienced a great deal of contempt and ridicule from orthodox historians and mainstream theorists." Which doesn't even make sense and is not true. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Trikasthanas (astrology)

Trikasthanas (astrology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to make no sense at all. That's probably because it deals with one of the more outré aspects of tantric astrology, or it could just be a massive hoax. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Aditya soni, many contributions give me cause for concern

Aditya soni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was just going through the contributions of this user. This editor seems to have contributed a large number of articles about Indian Astrology, all are written in the same excessively dense style as Trikasthanas (astrology). All that I saw are weakly sourced and present fringe theories as fact. Would any editors care to scrutinize this user's work? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Among several authored pages, there's Unmaad_yoga_(astrology) (an astrological explanation for insanity), Reka yoga (astrology) (an astrological explanation for Einstein), Dhi (Hindu thought) (an entire article for a word). This user is quite prolific, it could take quite a long time to go through everything. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
That just dinged the crackpot index. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology). --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh Lord, s/he has 160 created articles. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't even know where to begin. It's very difficult to tell in even the slightest bit what most of them are talking about. Take the newest one: Rasasvada. If I were to try to paraphrase the opening, I'd get: "Rasasvada is a word that means appreciation". It is in no way clear what the rest of the article has to do with this, and the rest of the article doesn't create any sense of meaning in my head at all (I see words, I can certainly read it, and yet...). Is it practical to go through all 160 individually and try to deal with them? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely impenetrable. AS CC says, where to begin? Here's a sample sentence from the Trikasthanas article; this is one sentence, mind you. "Kalidasa in his Uttara Kalamrita vide Sloka IV.22 states that the lord of the 8th in 6th or in the 12th, the lord of the 6th in the 8th or in the 12th and the lord of the 12th in the 6th or in the 8th house from the Lagna (Ascendant) give rise to extraordinary Raja Yogas provided these lords are mutually related by conjunction or by mutual aspect or by mutual exchange of signs, and at the same time do not relate with any other planet i.e. house-lord; and in case all three are involved then a very powerful Kalidasa in his Uttara Kalamrita vide Sloka IV.22 states that the lord of the 8th in 6th or in the 12th, the lord of the 6th in the 8th or in the 12th and the lord of the 12th in the 6th or in the 8th house from the Lagna (Ascendant) give rise to extraordinary Raja Yogas provided these lords are mutually related by conjunction or by mutual aspect or by mutual exchange of signs, and at the same time do not relate with any other planet i.e. house-lord; and in case all three are involved then a very powerful Raja yoga will arise." Wow. --Seduisant (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to raise this on the Original Research noticeboard. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We are going to need some help, and I think we are going to need an Admin to get involved in this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you willing to pass on our concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. Please link back to here so that interested individuals can track progress of the matter. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology) --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Per the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) and the other Afds, it appears that User:Aditya soni has no concerns that these articles are unreadable to the vast majority of Wikipedians. Other examples of this lack of concern show in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology): "I am not prepared to submit explanations because I can explain things only to those who understand these subjects" and "...I have posted articles dealing with Hindu astrology which can be more appreciated perhaps only by those who are in know of astrology." If the terminology used in these articles is so "technical" that it is meant only to be understood with those who have advanced knowledge of Hindu astrology, then WP:NOTJARGON also applies. Location (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there any precedent or process for bumping a large number of articles from main-space into the AFC space? That seems like a humane alternative to just AFD'ing (possibly) over 100 articles. I really do think that this individual should have been writing a book on their favorite subject. It's unfortunate that he/she has been using Wikipedia as an outlet for his/her own fringe research. Speaking of which, this editor has stated that all the articles on Hindu Astrology were 'reviewed' - so the question is who is reviewing this stuff and how did it pass review before? --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology) discussion, this editor owns that they have created 160 yoga-astrology articles. I haven't the inclination to verify this, but if true, Salimfadhey's question above becomes vital. (I did scan two pages of contribs and found at least a score of N articles.) No one on this forum has time to address 160 AfDs at once. --Seduisant (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The list of N articles, a few of which are moves, can be found here. Location (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion at WP:ANI includes a proposal to topic-ban the editor from creating new articles in article space (rather than going through AFC review). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I wrote this at ANI, but it seems worth repeating here. How do most of these articles differ from the ones we have on esoteric topics in Christianity? If one were to prepend "For the large majority of Hindus" to most of these articles they would be indistinguishable to me from Holy Spirit (Christianity) which begins: "For the large majority of Christians" and then is entirely based on WP:INUNIVERSE sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit concerned about this as well. However, Holy Spirit (Christianity) does at least cite sources outside of holy books, does a little more to cover the topic in a way that's understandable by people outside the group, establishes some importance in artwork, and to some degree establishes the "Holy Spirit" as a major aspect of the religion that may consequently be necessary encyclopedic coverage. Those things said, I find some of it to be little more penetrable than the astrology articles. At least I can see how the article is salvageable, though. The vast majority of the astrology articles in question are written for insiders, do not establish why any one else should care about it or what the importance of the topic is within the religion, and do not cite significant sources outside of the holy books directly; in fact they mostly act as synopses or tutorials for said books rather than encyclopedic articles. That, in addition to the fringey material claims, make the cases different. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, many articles are cloaked in impenetrable jargon and require an advanced knowledge of the topic to even begin to approach. However, this is not really a reason why these articles do not need to be improved. If anything, all this means is that, as a community, we should work harder to make sure our articles have thorough references and do not refer to concepts like the holy ghost or the Chinese zodiac or transubstantiation without at least touching the cultural and religious context. It's not just about readability, it's about usefulness and the policies should ensure that all articles -- regardless of subject -- are reasonably accessible to readers. Alicb (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm all for improving articles. I just don't understand the moral panic splashed across three noticeboards because some Hinduism articles need editing when no such panic exists over the innumerable Christianity articles that also need editing. One person's fringe theories are another person's religion. See WP:WORLDVIEW. And Wikipedia isn't going to break because some articles need editing. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@IP User, this is the Fringe Theory Noticeboard - our mission is to examine fringe topics on Wikipedia. At the moment this editor is making a lot of additions to the mainspace that are highly questionable - actually I've been reviewing many of User:Aditya soni's changes - this editor's older contributions about Hinduism and Buddhism seem to be significantly better articles than the recent articles about Hindu Astrology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The question is by what definition is Hindu Astrology a fringe theory given that astrology is much more central to Hinduism than it is to some western religions? How is it not religion and religion that is practiced by more people than the entire population of the United States? If the claim is that it is fringe is based on it being unscientific, then transubstantiation is fringe and so on. Why can these articles not be edited to apply to "adherents" and "followers" as I have done with Reka yoga [48]. Why must the creator be burned as a witch for the sin of having added religious content to Wikipedia that needs editing? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is burning anybody as a witch. My main concerns are the poor quality of writing, original research and lack of verifiability of the astrology article. I'm also concerned that many of the astrology articles do not meet our standards of notability which are really at the core of Wikipedia. If you disagree with these policies, it might be best to select another wiki! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all, talking about witch burnings is ridiculous and quite frankly insulting. No one is talking about having the creator of these articles punished or harmed in any way. No one is calling him a sinner. I don't know about anyone else, but I think that there is a lot of value of this user's contributions and that is why I am eager to find a positive solution that involves remediating the articles in question, not simply deleting them outright. I think we can all agree that these articles need work; we shouldn't get hung up on which noticeboard things are posted to -- we can always move it out of this one into another one at any time if the discussion here isn't helpful. The main concern that I have with this user is that he has so far not been very communicative. Alicb (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
They are talking about having him punished, yes. There is the concept of a draconian and arbitrary sanction to prevent creation of articles except via WP:AFC. That, to me, is punishment. Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that this discussion is better held at ANI where it has been raised with a view to stopping the editor from creating new articles. That discussion seems to me to pre-empt any discussion here. While we have no obvious concept of seniority of noticeboards, one with the direct power to sanction an editor seems to me to take logical precedence over one that may wish to do it.

It appears from the outside that this is a 'my religious nuttery is better than thy religious nuttery' discussion, concealed in a procedural discussion about a reasonably large number of articles created by a prolific editor who writes in arcane English and whose referencing may or may not be imperfect for some or all of the time. That editor has now joined the discussion at ANI with words showing calm contemplation of the matter at hand.

If this is a matter of article quality then that can be addressed in the usual way, ranging from improvement where possible to deletion where necessary. There is no time limit on this. If it means work, so be it. If there are few who will do this work, so be it.

If this is a matter of article quantity then we need to take a long inward look. I would like to be as productive! I wonder how the editor in question does it! Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that any punitive actions may be unwarranted in this case. Having spent more time reviewing User:Aditya soni's edits the problematic articles seem to be mostly this editor's later works on Astrology. They are borderline unreadable, poorly sourced and still give rise to concerns WP:OR and WP:N concerns. Bumping 160 articles out of main-space is also an unwarranted action given that a considerable proportion of this editor's contributions do not give reasons for concern. At this time I believe that a process of active engagement might yield the best possible result. I still think that the AFCs we have open on four of her astrology articles should remain. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I was invited to ANI for a third opinion. The concepts the user writes on are "real" concepts (not WP:FRINGE) in Hindu astrology. That said; many of them do not warrant an independent article, but however need to mentioned in the master article. Trikasthanas (astrology) IMO should be merged with Bhāva and retained as a para or 2. The articles created by the user are primarily based on WP:PRIMARY sources, thus may be coloured by the author's perception (Read WP:OR). Articles like Devatas (Vedanta) seem to be WP:POVFORKs of the master article (in this case, Rigvedic deities or Deva (Hinduism)).Redtigerxyz Talk 06:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "The question is by what definition is Hindu Astrology a fringe theory". It makes claims about the natural world that contradict the scientific mainstream and is a near non-existence position in the scientific community. This makes it fringe. It's also pseudoscientific by both common definitions. It fails to meet the definitions of pseudoscience [49] since the predictions of astrologers fall into the empirically testable domain but fail to meet the standards of science, and also its proponents claim to be scientific. "Why must the creator be burned as a witch for the sin of having added religious content to Wikipedia that needs editing?", the edits under discussion here are not about religious areas that do not impact on scientific domains. If a reader popped across an article saying that Einstein didn't do well in school because of astrology it's misinforming them (and the old version of that said it in the wikipedia tone). The editor isn't following our notability criteria, our fringe theories guideline, our sourcing guidelines or in fact anything. I personally offered a note on fringe theories a year ago so I see little excuse for him being unaware. Second Quantization (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoughtful perspectives on the nature of life

Resolved
 – Article deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

begins thus:

Starting in the 1930s, as physics, chemistry and biology were maturing as sciences, a number of scientists proposed thoughtful perspectives on the nature of life ...

This seems a very curious and newish (June 2014) article giving often unsourced or poorly-sourced summaries of some variously odd notions about life. I think the article is essentially not encyclopedic. What say you? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not an article, that's an essay. That covers ground already thoroughly covered in abiogenesis and life. Kolbasz (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is essayish, but I think that there is probably some salvageable encyclopedic content there. Its creator seems relatively new, and I think it might be best to userfy the content and try to work with him to find a place for some of it on Wikipedia. Just my 2c. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is anything worth saving it can be merged otherwise the page should be removed from mainspace. I recommend userfy it or AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature of life. Anyone who believes nonsense Hoyle spewed is correct is sadly deluded. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Horerczy

Resolved
 – Article deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly of interest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horerczy. Apparently this is a creature that breathes out Alps in the form of butterflies. No evidence for its folkloric existence has yet been found except in the writing of this person. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ropen

Resolved
 – Article deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"The Ropen is a flying cryptid[1] alleged to live in the vicinity of Papua New Guinea.[2] According to the second edition of the book Searching for Ropens, it is "any featherless creature that flies in the Southwest Pacific, and has a tail-length more than 25% of its wingspan," but according to the third edition of that book, it is "A modern pterosaur with Rhamphorhynchoid characteristics."

Page could probably use some eyeballs... Followed by (at the least) a few whacks with the reality stick.

Yeah looks a bit ropey. Tempting just to cut the unsourced stuff as that would yield an immediate improvement... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It's suggested here that the entire "Ropen" enterprise is the result of sockpuppeting by a single person. There's a plurality of sources in the article, but if they are actually all essentially from a single person they're all primary sources, in addition to being just plain unreliable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Aside from a number of of crypto-fringe sources and a few creationist books pushing the view that this mythical creature exists, are there any independent reliable sources that could be used to write an objective article? If not, AfD is the place for it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at thwacking some sense into the article, but I agree AfD is the place to put it. The books appear to be vanity press material, and the website sources exist solely to push them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ropen -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Rosemary Willis

Rosemary Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rosemary Willis was a 10-year old witness to the assassination of JFK. Voluminous as the Warren Commission report was, Rosemary's name appears in it only once and that is in a brief mention by Phillip Willis, her father, during his testimony (see page 596 of Appendix VII). Investigating the possibility of a gunman on the "grassy knoll shooter", the HSCA gave her three paragraphs (see page 7 of Appendix XII). In addition to that primary source material, I found two reliable secondary sources quoting her belief in a conspiracy (i.e. 1978 Texas Monthly article, 1979 UPI article) and another that touches on her movements in the Zapruder film (1993 article by Gerald Posner in US News & World Report). The rest appear to be from fringe sources quoting her or analyzing her movements. I also found her name mentioned in sources unrelated to the assassination (i.e. the obituaries of family members and legal documents), but I'll omit them from this post for privacy reasons. Question: Is this person notable enough for a stand alone article? BTW, lost in all of this is Rosemary Willis (Miss Virginia). Location (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

My opinion... no. My views is that this would fall into WP:BLP1E - an otherwise unknown individual knoew for one event. Granted, it's a massive event, but her role in it certainly wasn't. There's a place for people like this when their minor involvement prompts personal study and research to the point where they become an expert on the subject and make a living on the public speaking circuit or writing books. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Mentions in obituaries have nothing to do with the one event for which she received any coverage. I'd nominate it for deletion. St★lwart111 05:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert Bruce (author)

This article might have to be redirected to astral projection. Cannot find any reliable sources. Let me know if anyone knows of any? Would a redirect be appropriate here? Goblin Face (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In what would be considered reliable, non-fringe sources, I found his name noted in conjunction with one of his books.[50] Probably among the most notable mentions within fringe sources, mentioned on the Coast to Coast website.[51] He's probably notable within the fringe universe, but I cannot find anything that would work for Wikipedia purposes. Location (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism - truthers etc.

Just ran into this. Seems to be just a propaganda piece. Eg "Doug Rokke is a former Army Reserve Major who enlisted in 1967. He considers it his patriotic duty to tell the world aboput the dangers of depleted uranium has posed to the servicemen and the public. He also talks about the military coverup about the thousands of affected veterans". Rokke for instance is some sort of "truther" who participates in neo-Nazi conferences.[52] (Nordwave is an American National Socialist organization created in 2000 by Alex Hassinger.). User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret is another conspiracy theorist - see her website[53] - which I note says she also worked on mind control for HAARP. Joyce Riley is also a believer in a massive coverup.[54][55]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And then we have Beyond Treason which evidently makes a compelling case for " US government testing of chemicals on its own citizens such as Operation Whitecoat and MKUltra being responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism currently does not include any reliable secondary sourcing, but I have found news coverage of various protests. Is there an article that touches upon criticism of depleted uranium to which this could be redirected?
Beyond Treason does not appear to have sufficient coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability (films). I was going to say that it could be redirected to Joyce Riley, but that article redirects to yet another unsourced article, American Gulf War Veterans Association. Have we stumbled upon a Wikipedia:Walled garden? Location (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
And now I've found Dave vonKleist who sounds like a very unpleasant person (well, not in his article but then his article barely scratches the surface). An academic source for his article:[56]And [57] Those are about his "truther" leanings. The nastier side of him and Joyce Riley are mentioned at [58] And we have American Gulf War Veterans Association which sounds innocuous until you look at their website[American Gulf War Veterans Association]. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Add William Lewis (film director) and 911: In Plane Site to the list of articles that should go. Location (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll get the ball rolling:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Treason.

jps (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that opposition to the use of depleted uranium in weapons is hardly just a 'fringe' perspective - it is one that for example the United Nations has taken note of. [59] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The question is not whether the issue is notable (it is), the question is whether these people and their films and organizations are notable because of their involvement with it, which as far as I can tell is not the case. If we had an article about Joyce Riley I suppose all this could be merged there, but we don't and probably shouldn't. Anyway, the association's article is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Gulf War Veterans Association (2nd nomination). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. This article is clearly fringe - it's all about a fringe view about a global conspiracy and pushes fringe people with neo-Nazi connections. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Riley receives trivial coverage in a handful of news reports, however, that is all I see of her in reliable sources. Perhaps Joyce Riley should redirect to Gulf War syndrome, but there is not enough for a stand-alone article IMO. The beliefs of both factions of the American Gulf War Veterans Association are somewhat nebulous, so I couldn't even recommend a redirect there. Location (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Merge anything useful in to the Depleted uranium article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The only useful stuff is about the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons so I turned it into a redirect.
Started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave vonKleist - after I remove quite a bit of copyvio I searched for sources and failed. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I would advise caution around the ICBUW article, considering that it was mostly written by ICBUW (talk · contribs), who may also have edited other related topics in a way that frames the ICBUW's position as the definitive Truth. bobrayner (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Figured I should say hi before you cleanse Wikipedia of anything to do with DU. By way of background ICBUW was launched to take a robust evidence-based approach to the issue. There is an issue with DU - as one might expect from the casual dispersal of intermediate level rad waste in conflict, particularly where there are no obligations to clean it up afterwards or even say where it has been fired. If you're still wondering about that have a think about what the response to DU dispersal would look like in DC or NY or wherever. However I would be the first to agree that post 9-11 DU got caught up in the US with all sorts of weird issues and it has done, and continues to do the issue a great deal of damage. I think what you need to do is to separate the global civil society campaign against DU (which gets results like this at the UN General Assembly http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/unga-2012-vote) from the views of wandering cranks, not all of whom are located in the US. There's loads more on our work here: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/publications or on the site as a whole. Happy to discuss further as required. ICBUW (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lewis (film director). -Location (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Last one standing? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site. jps (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Something odd happened on this one. I'm inclined to take it to Deletion Review given that two keep votes and a lot of side dicussion doesn't seem to me to be much of a basis for closure. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No need for a deletion review unless you think there is some more to be added to the conversation. I think given the wide-ranging discussion we should try to make a college try on working on the article to see if we can't establish notability and independent sourcing. If that can't be accomplished, we can simply renominate in short order. The film actually seems to have its claims causing some influence over other articles. The weeding may have to be done on the outside and move in before trying to delete again. jps (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the close would be overturned at WP:DRV. In my opinion, notability of the film is dependent upon whether or not DVD Talk carries any weight as a reviewer of films and/or DVDs. The discussion in the Afd led to another discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#DVD Talk in which there does not appear to be any clear consensus on that issue either. Location (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

It's an NPOV train wreck. If there are three sentences in this allegedly encyclopedic article that offer any balance to the catalog of fringe theories offered up, I couldn't find them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also be concerned about the content at the main John F. Kennedy assassination article. Sunrise (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Similar to the current discussion in Talk:September 11 attacks, the conspiracy section in John F. Kennedy assassination should be trimmed significantly. What should be retained there and what should be merged with the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories is probably a discussion topic for Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination. Location (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics

International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Any thoughts on reverting this once well-cited article to this version? Location (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Anything is better than the current disaster, and that suggestion seems reasonable. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Second Roxy the dog. When I looked it was a mess, prior version superior. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The article has been reverted to the version of 09:07, 3 January 2009. Location (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ronan Coghlan

Resolved
 – Article deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this guy notable? He seems to have written his own article. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to find anything in reliable sources independent of the subject to support WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NBOOK. Location (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_42&oldid=1142598538"