Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 41

When is a subject non-religious and when is it religious?

I am sincerely confused when a subject is religious and when it is not. See e.g. Talk:Arthur_Ford#Your_defense_of_skeptic_sources_e.g._at_talk:Arthur_Ford. Years ago I went thru mediation regarding Sathya Sai Baba with the outcome that skeptical sources, like the Indian Skeptic were not okay to use as a source for his miracles. See User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source In contrast the parapsychologist Erlendur Haraldsson was fine.

It seems to me that different policies apply when a subject is religious and when it is not, so the classification of the subject and article does matter. I think WP:fringe does not apply for religious subjects, like Arthur Ford.

Thanks in advance for ur comments. Andries (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

What I am asking for is rules and guidelines and consistency among a range of articles, including Sathya Sai Baba, Miracles of Jesus and Arthur Ford. Andries (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There is clearly a demarcation issue. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andries. The answer to your query lies in this section of WP:FRINGE, although I'm guessing from your previous inquiries you already know the difference between Christian's religious belief in the Miracles of Jesus and, say, Arthur Ford appearing on a TV program claiming that he's making contact with someone's dead son. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

What miracles? There is absolutely no credible evidence that anything he did was miraculous, every "miracle" can be accounted for by the entirely prosaic mechanisms of stage conjuring. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

JzG, Erlendur Haraldsson's book "Miracles are my visiting cards" which is considered a reliable source in mediation in 2006 described many alleged miracles attributed to Sathya Sai Baba that cannot be explained by sleight of hand. Andries (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Alleged. Meanwhile, back in the real world, it remains the case that not one single miracle has been proven to performed by any supernatural mechanism. Given that in his dotage Sai Baba was getting clumsier and the sleight of hand more obvious, it's hard to see the claims of believers as anything other than credulous. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)o

This is a veering toward an off-topic discussion. I hope that I will find time to write on this subject on my now nearly empty blog. If so, I will alert you on ur talk page. Andries (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, no I do not see differences that warrant different sourcing guidelines or policies between Arthur Ford and Miracles of Jesus. Both Ford and Jesus had followers and both are treated by religious scholars. Andries (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Evaluating_claims this section "Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended (my emphasis) to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis,"

No, I do not think that any of the three example articles that I mentioned intended to directly confront scientific discoveries and hence fall into the religious category, so WP:fringe does not apply and scientific skeptical sources are unsuitable for these three articles. Andries (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much any subject can be religious: The category of "religious subjects" is pretty much just a nominal one: Whatever is widely named as religious is religious. For example creation science—on that article it rightly says, "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view". Well, WP:FRINGE clearly applies to creation science. In fact, that's the judgement of the Arbitrators: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision. So I think you should reconsider your view that WP:FRINGE does not apply to religious subjects. Obviously, other people disagree with me. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Atethnekos, it is clear from the name alone that creation science intends to directly confront scientific discoveries. Andries (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So rather than being that WP:FRINGE should not apply to religious subjects simpliciter, is your proposal that WP:FRINGE should not apply to religious subjects that don't involve directly confronting scientific discoveries? A counter-example in that case would be e.g., theories of Allah as Moon-god. These are fringe theories, and they are not intended to confront scientific discoveries. At most they are intended to confront discoveries in the humanities, particularly comparative mythology. More often than not though they are just intended to serve apologetic purposes. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Added a missing word for readability. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

May be a statement should be added to WP:Fringe that religious subjects i.e. subjects treated in religious studies, psychology of religion, sociology of religion, theology and not treated in other fields of science, fall outside the scope of fringe even if they contain some paranormal claims. What do you think? Andries (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That surely can't be the criteria. Rather, it should be that one may talk about beliefs - clearly labelled as such - without need to contrast with more skeptical sources, but the moment be talks of proof or tries to claim something cannot be explained, then bring on the skepticism. There have been innumerable cults and fraudsters. We shouldn't tae the position that Wikipedia should be defined solely by the believers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a clearly bad idea. There is a difference between "in-universe" discussions about religious articles of faith and claims to secular truth. WP:FRINGE likely applies in both cases, but in different ways. In discussing items of religious dogma, you're talking about what people believe, not what is true, so the fringe sources you're avoiding are fringe believers (e.g. you wouldn't want to prominently include the Westboro Baptist Church's views in an article about Christianity). In discussing whether or not someone actually had magic powers or miraculous abilities, then you use a wider scientific standard. There is no reason to analyze whether something's religious or not. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Appropriate framing can mean that there is little need for much counterargument - if the article makes it very clear it's talking about the beliefs of a religion, and does not stray into advocating for their truth, then fine. If it's on a religious text, and simply neutrally describes it, sure. But first of all - I do firmly believe the meditation listed at the start of this was likely wrong, at least in part, if - as I understand it - it ended by saying religious figures are protected from criticism of their claimed abilities. They are not, and cannot be. There are, however, arguments to be had about uses of sources, and how best to present the evidence, but that's not the same as saying evidence that contradicts religious figures should be rejected out of hand: that is never the case. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Adam, I think that you misunderstand this thorough mediation. The mediation only said that hardline skeptic sources, like Indian Skeptic and Robert Todd Carroll skeptic dictionaries are not suitable for the article Sathya Sai Baba because they are not peer reviewed, and too partisan. Criticisms from other sources was allowed. However the problem that I have is that this kind of reasoning is not applied consistently over Wikipedia. Why is the use of hardline skeptic sources okay for Arthur Ford? Can I use the skeptic dictionary as a source at Miracles of Jesus. If yes, then why not at Sathya Sai Baba? If not, then why don't people try this? (I think that there will be too much opposition.) Andries (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

One could use them at Miracles of Jesus - were there not better, more notable sources. We have criticism by extremely notable critics such as David Hume, we don't really need lesser lights. At Sathya Sai Baba, we also have much more prominent, notable criticism, so need not go down that far. Arthur Ford was never as prominent as Jesus or Sathya Sai Baba, and, as such, the notability of the sources that cover him is less - and the sources used there are thus appropriately notable for the article. Are you aware of WP:PARITY? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I also announced this discussion here here, because this is discussion about the scope of different policies and editing styles. Andries (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, the WP:FORUMSHOP is open. For the record, I think it would be a violation of policy to allow the in-universe characterisation of Sai Baba's conjuring to pass as fact. Bear in mind that Sai Baba's followers are not infrequently referred to as a cult and there's significant evidence that the guru was abusing his power and influence over the faithful, it would be entirely wrong to adopt the usual uncritical tone of articles on historical religious mysteries, most of which have no contemporaneous skeptical sources. Your long-term and very determined advocacy of Sai baba is a matter of record. Your desire for parity between the claims of Sai Baba and those of the historical religions fails because the claimed miracles of Sai Baba were already debunked during his lifetime, whereas the claimed miracles of Christianity, for example, have a clear context as allegory. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not an advocate of Sathya Sai Baba, but I stick to agreements made and follow policies about sourcing and I think they have to be applied consistently over religious articles with paranormal aspects, regardless whether the article is about old religious movements or new religious movements. Andries (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit history tells a different story. (clarification: I chose the wrong word; what I mean is that you have very little apparent interest in Wikipedia other than to discuss this one subject). And yes, there is a difference between old religious movements and modern ones. Do you think the first century Christians would have got away with the miracle claims in today's climate? These myths are generally understood to be just that, whereas the claims of Sai Baba are pretty clearly simple conjuring. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andries: OK you've initiated a general discussion around the premise "fringe does not apply for religious subjects" and you've made a specific proposal to change WP:FRINGE to reflect that, but you haven't gotten any support for your ideas here, and it's unlikely any will be forthcoming. At this point, it's probably best that you move your proposal to an appropriate place, i.e. Talk:Fringe theories. Do you have specific text changes you'd like to see at Sathya Sai Baba and Arthur Ford? If so, the Talk pages of those articles are your best bet to pursuing those. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait a bit. If a subject is religious then it is likely treated by religious scholars etc which tend to be reliable source. This includes Arthur Ford who is treated by J. Gordon Melton and then according to WP:parity hard line skeptic sources have no place in this article. (I am not very motivated to improve Arthur Ford, except to make a point regarding the proper use of sources.) So, even if my proposal was rejected, in practice the current policies will ensure that my proposal is implemented. Andries (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You may also be interested what user:Jayen466 and I wrote in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/New_religious_movements#Reliable_sources. The subject of religious articles with paranormal alspects is most pronounced in new religious movements. And the best sources according to Wikipedia policies are not hard line skeptic sources, but rather peer review religious studies articles, anthropology of religion articles etc. Andries (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC) ( 05:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC) added a little for clarity )

See WP:OTHERCRAP. You are torturing precedent in order to argue against policy. Wikipedia does not work that way. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

And your "refer to the guideline I wrote" argument is not particularly convincing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, the main reason why I linked the guideline that I co-authored was to get input. However I still expect reasons for JzG/Guy's mass revert of all my edits on this guideline, instead of mere ad hominem arguments. And they are not even true. Andries (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If it comes down to "we can't use skeptics, and we can't use sources from within the group, then the usual result is going to be deletion. Mangoe (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Religious topics are not immune from WP:FRINGE... however, WP:FRINGE has to be applied within the context of religion. Within the broader topic area of "Religion", there are fringe religious movements, and fringe religious beliefs, and we appropriately give such movements and beliefs a lot less weight (or even no weight at all) than we do non-fringe religious movements and beliefs. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me, Blueboar... So you see Wikipedia's ("neutral") role as being to define what is orthodoxy and who is heretical within each religious tradition, rather than just give an impartial bird's eye view of the differing positions? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Just above you referred to "non-fringe religious movements and beliefs". So when are we going to see the official listing of Blue-boar approved "non-fringe religious movements and beliefs" so we can make sure we don't step in any hot water with him there... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Where did you get that from? Focus on content: the specific issue here is whether the conjuring tricks of Sai Baba should be portrayed as "miracles" based on the say-so of members of his cult. Answer: hell no, followed by a lot of muddying of the waters, which anybody who loves Schubert will tell you, leads to no good result. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not the issue. The issue is whether when and to what extent hard line skeptic sources are okay to use for religious subjects. I admit that omission of hard line skeptic sources will make some religious articles including Sathya Sai Baba somewhat less critical, but certainly not without criticisms. Some peer reviewed articles by religious scholars summarize hard line skeptic sources, but generally they tend be silent about the veracity of truth claims by religious movements. However it would be strange to mix peer reviewed sources that already summarize hard line skeptic sources with the hard line skeptic sources. That would cause a balance issue. Andries (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly just one person's opinion. But I would tend to that the best indicators of WEIGHT for topics like this which aren't "scientific" in some way are the extant specialized reference sources and overviews in academic literature. The articles in such are often longer than our own. When such don't specifically help, RfCs are useful.John Carter (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoegyptology vs. pyramidology?

I would value input here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Claims of medieval Muslim decipherment of hieroglyphs

A related subject: According to this edit by Bill Poser, claims that Muslim scholars had partly deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphs a full millennium before Champollion are not taken seriously in Egyptology. Nevertheless, Ibn Wahshiyya cites El Daly, apparently the main proponent of this idea, as a reliable source. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

El Daly is an archaeologist at University College London, so he is an RS, and it's an issue of due weight. I've found a few reviews of El Daly's book, and most of them agree that El Daly performs a valuable function by discussing Arab study of ancient Egypt, but that his conclusions can be excessively boosterish. This review and this one are the only ones I can find that address the hieroglyph issue in any depth, and they both say that El Daly exaggerates the Arab scholars' success in identifying the glyphs. A more reliable review, by Robert Schick in Near Eastern Archaeology [1], doesn't say El Daly exaggerates but does say "some authors attempted to decipher ancient Egyptian, which they recognized was similar to Coptic, but their attempts were not successful and their understanding did not develop past a general sense that hieroglyphics had a phonetic value along with their symbolic value". So it is safe to say that these Arab scholars recognized those two points. But it seems to be questionable whether they correctly identified any specific phonetic values. A. Parrot (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd second that. Ibn Wahshiyya footnote #9 links to a translation of the book wherein he purportedly deciphered hieroglyphs, and the tables therein basically don't line up at all with what I learned in school. Even when he's close he's wrong - he alleges that the character for N means water, which is its derivation, but not its meaning, and he seems to think the glyph for the god Horus is simply the glyph for God. These are his least wrong associations, and they're only just barely in the same ball park. To call this decipherment is a stretch. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Mindfulness meditation

Until two weeks ago, this was a redirect; it has become an article and is accumulating some content on research into the health effects of meditiation (/mindfulness), over which there is some Talk page discussion. Fringe editors may wish to monitor this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(Add) Relatedly, I notice we also have:

• Neural mechanisms of mindfulness meditation

which has a lot of non-WP:MEDRS sourcing at its heart. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mazzaroth

I've cleaned it up, but this could probably use some bookmarks - it had grown a thick crust of fringe theories and original research. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Do we have to qualify scientific results as "known to scientists"?

Given that this was important enough to Til Eulenspiegel for him to edit war (2 week block), I'm thinking that what I've raised at WP:NPOVN#Attribution issue at Ethiopia - do we need to say "known to scientists"? is a fringe issue - he seems to think it needs to be attributed to scientists - one of his edit summaries said "Uh oh, seems Doug Weller prefers to flare this into a dispute, says "attribution isn't necessary" for what European regime-paid scientists say, published views of Ethiopian scholars he deems irrelevant but theirs is the more prominent voice in that nation" - although I can't figure out from Ethiopia what he is talking about. At the moment the lead still has Til's version attributing it to scientists (and is vaguer than the relevant section in the article). I didn't bring it here earlier to avoid accusations from Til, but as he is now blocked and as I see it as a fringe issue relevant to other articles, I'm mentioning it here. Comments should go there, not here. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If something's reliably sourced and not seriously contested it can generally be asserted as a fact. Attributing it can have the unwarranted effect of making it seem contested. There are circumstances however where it can be useful use attribution to emphasize that a view is firmly held in (say) the scientific community. So I guess it depends - for topics covered by this noticeboard I always want to look at the end result of the text and ask if it is making any implications of a pro-fringe nature. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If Til is involved it's very safe to figure that the point is to imply that scientists don't know everything and that sometimes other sources know more. Mangoe (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the disputed text? bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the diff [2]. The context is that Til is a biblical literalist. His creationism is also combined with various Garveyite and Rastafarian-influenced ideas about the biblical history and world significance of Ethiopia and African races. So there's often a combination of standard creationism with accusations of racism and Eurocentrism. However, he does try to stick to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines most of the time. Part of the problem here is that scientific accounts of the early history of humanity are in some ways uncertain, so it may well be legitimate to say something like "scientists believe ...". It depends on the specific claim being made. The convoluted wording used by Til is a characteristic masterpiece of circumlocution: "Ethiopia is one of the oldest locations of human life known to scientists"; that's transparently designed to evade referring to evolution, by implying humans just appeared at a "location", Ethiopia being "one of" the places where the oldest evidence of their presence has been found by scientists. Paul B (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for enlarging my understanding of where Til comes from. Your explanation, that he is trying to evade referring to evolution, makes a lot of sense. However, I'm not in full agreement with you over his adherence to our policies and guidelines - it's my impression that he dislikes our NPOV policy, presumably because it conflicts with biblical literalism, etc, and although many of his edits are good, his personal beliefs intrude too often. And of course he ignores WP:AGF and WP:NPA completely - he barely escaped a ban or block over his attack on me and Dab which was rev/del'd and that was only one of many personal attacks he's made. And of course this is his 7th block for edit-warring. In this specific case the main text in the article didn't say scientists believe, and was more specific than the lead which as you noted didn't have any suggestion of the evolution of humanity. I hadn't thought of that. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Forgot - he is also a fringe supporter of various ideas relating to hyperdiffusion - European and other visitors to the Americas before the Vikings. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mindbody relaxation

Resolved

 – redirected - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Do your thing. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, for following up. TimidGuy (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Biochemic tissue salt

• Biochemic tissue salt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to be related to some kind of pseudo-homeopathy, the article as written presents these "remedies" uncritically. Could use the attention of someone with a broader knowledge of this area than I possess. CIreland (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The article originally mentioned is now redirected to List of Schüßler cell salts which says,

"The twelve tissue remedies or "cell salts" promoted by Wilhelm Heinrich Schüßler in his controversial treatment system of minerals...".

Shouldn't the "treatment system" be described differently than "controversial" for instance ineffective or content added like that in the Wilhelm Heinrich Schüßler article,

"According to Quackwatch, "cell salts" are predicated on the theory that disease is due to a deficiency in one mineral or another, but the Schüßler remedies are in general too diluted to act as an effective supplement even if a mineral deficiency did exist. Tests by the Western Australia health commission confirmed this."

Just saying, even a list shouldn't present a "treatment system" without giving the current scientific medical information on said "treatment system". - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Russell Targ

A new user claiming to be Targ has turned up on the article deleting skeptical references and inserting personal comments. Any eyes appreciated to watch over this, I have reverted him but he keeps re-adding his personal commentary. I have a feeling the same person was also editing on a bunch of IPs on the article deleting references a few weeks ago. Goblin Face (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, Targ wasn't particularly significant in laser development, but was a very significant woo. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

He published some stuff on LIDAR for measurement of wind shear. The sources cited are primary. We can say he did that, but its significance is far from clear and it does not belong in the lede. We should be respectful but firm, as always. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There is some more activity here. A new user is inserting content from an unreliable source. Discussion on talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If at first you don't succeed...

...start another discussion.

...and another discussion.

jps (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat ... ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the myth that isn't called a myth because some people believe it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the fringe theory here? We know that some Christians (and followers of other faiths) don't like their creation myths being described as such - but this is a dispute over a label, rather than a theory, and as far as I can see not directly of relevance to this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theory: These myths are not actually myths because they actually happened. That's clearly not the only argument that one can marshall against labeling the article with some term other than "myth", but it has been a consistent distraction in previous discussions on the subject. Maybe it won't be this time, though, and we can take your point to heart! I will hope for such an outcome! jps (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

When is a creationist not a pseudoscientist?

Category_talk:Answers_in_Genesis_staff_and_speakers#Category:Pseudoscientists.

jps (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, when all of them all are? One would think that since creationists as a class would be considered pseudoscientists, the category structure would dictate that they don't get double-categorized. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is this even a category? If Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Category:Answers in Genesis staff and speakers fails it should be moved to Category:Answers in Genesis or Category:Advocates of pseudoscientific bullshit. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Russell Targ (again)

As mentioned before, Targ (on an IP address) and on an account "Torgownik" was editing his article adding in personal commentary and deleting references that were critical of his work in parapsychology. He was told to add reliable references for his claims when editing the article, but he did not listen. He has since complained on his facebook that users with a "hatred" for ESP are editing his Wikipedia article to remove his science career. Of course this is not true, neither is his other claim that Wikipedia banned him from editing his article. This is obviously a case of meat puppetry as he is telling people to come over and edit his article, [3], his rant has now been spammed around on various conspiracy theory/crank paranormal websites [4] [5], [6] etc. There is now a single purpose account adding in some fringe sources (obviously a friend of Targ), he was reverted but others will probably join in. The issue here though is that users such as myself have found it hard to find any reliable sources for his work in lasers. For example Targ claims to have been a "pioneer" in the earliest development of the laser but it has been hard to find any references for this, I also can't find any sources for his claims about working with NASA, if he did what did he work on? He claims to have worked on airborne laser wind measurements. Any help please appreciated with looking for these sources. Goblin Face (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The legion of loons has not yet arrived, if they do, please let me know and I will get the article semi-protected. Your vigilance is appreciated, thank you for keeping an eye on this one. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

An ESP gizmo he helped develop was used for something partially funded by NASA. A pretty tenuous connection. [7] - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Always tracks back to SRI, doesn't it? These guys are past masters at the appeal to authority. We once weaselled money out of a credulous Uncle Sam, therefore unicorns. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Also in the early 1990s, he was one of the authors of a paper on windshear sensoring "as part of the NASA / FAA National Integrated Windshear Program" [8] so he had some professional contact with the second co-author of the paper (who worked at NASA Langley). Still, I don't see a brush with NASA as having any weight in the article since it hasn't been covered by secondary sources as being significant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If its not considered notable by a secondary source its not encyclopedic. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Asserting facts about fringe topics, again

Prompted by a recent thread at WT:MED#Asserting "facts" and by discussions on the Talk page of Reiki, I want to ask a general question to check the consensus on neutral presentation of "facts" about claimed pseudoscientific phenomena. I'm using "fact" in the Wikipedia sense of being information about which there is no serious dispute. So, taking Qi as an example, and having a good source which states "The existence of Ki (or Qi, life energy) has not been proven scientifically", and assuming there are no reliable countering sources, should Wikipedia state:

1. In 2008, Lee and colleagues said that qi had not yet been proven to exist by Western science^[ref]
2. In 2008, Lee and colleagues said that qi had not been proven to exist^[ref]
3. As of 2008 no evidence had emerged that qi exists^[ref]
4. There is no scientific evidence that qi exists^[ref]
5. Qi does not exist^[ref]

In my view 4 & 5 are the only neutral variants and either is good (depending on context). Attributing this information gives an unwarranted implication that it is in serious dispute or is just opinion. I certainly don't think what is currently in our Qi article is good:

• Some studies claim to have been able to measure qi, or the effects of manipulating qi (such as through acupuncture),^{[citation needed]} but the proposed existence of qi has also been questioned within the scientific community.^{[citation needed]}

Thoughts? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think as a rule we should tend to prefer #4. The inclusion of a date in the first three is weaselly, and the fifth is too "scientists are the guardians of Ultimate Truth" to pass NPOV muster. As far as the current wording is concerned, I've come to take a hard line on these uncited claims, and I revert them on sight these days. If you cannot come up with evidence, you shouldn't be inserting the claim when it's obviously controversial. Mangoe (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

But scientists are the guardians of ultimate truth! Guy (Help!) 15:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

1. 4 is preferable because it states the the context of Qi's non-existence. I could say "Unicorns exist in the imagination of fantasy writers" which is a true statement despite no living, corporeal unicorn ever having existed. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Grinberg Method

Grinberg Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has an isolated "Controversies" section, but besides that, it's gushing uncritically about... well, whatever this thing is (a "structured methodology" of "the expanded outlook of foot-analysis, reflexology and bodywork"). References are mainly primary, with a healthy bit of WP:OR sprinkled throughout. Kolbasz (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ariel UFO incident

Ariel UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aliens land in Zimbabwe and communicate telepathically with school children... - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure it wasn't South Africa? Oh, wait, no, that was District 9. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew McIntosh (professor)

Andrew McIntosh (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please note that there is very little in the way of explanation of fringe nature of this person's YEC beliefs.

jps (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD'd per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Likely not to be nuked (for reasons that are only explicable with extreme cynicism). Guy (Help!) 00:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-fu

Anyone with good template-fu might like to add File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg to the talk page header template for fringe topics under arbitration, or possibly to the "controversial" talk page template. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Urine therapy and Urophagia

• Urine therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Urophagia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need eyes. Yesterday I reverted an editor who added, amongst other material that "This age old natural therapy can prevent and cure cancer, AIDS, Renal failure, gall bladder stones, cerebral palsy" with some non-RS sources. He's replaced some and I've reverted again. Hopefully he will stop and I've asked people at a couple of Wikiprojects to counsel him. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Do we really need two articles on this? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, urine was a notable form of quackery back in the day - they were known as piss-prophets - but this was as a diagnostic leading to the prescription of cure-alls, not urine therapy as such. There's probably only one article's worth between them, and a reference to Burzynski may be justified as the most notable current proponent of this quackery. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Biologically based therapy

• {{Biologically based therapy}}

The term "biologically based therapy" seems to me to be POV and lacking in any concrete definition; it was transcluded on urine therapy and Chinese food therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the last of which I have nominated for deletion as it's a single sentence that does not even try to establish its significance.

I have TfD nominated the template and moved the articles to {{Alternative medicine}}. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews: Where woo is fine.

n:Glasgow cannabis enthusiasts celebrate 'green' on city green

"One speaker, who produced a bottle of cannabis oil he had received through the post, explained this cured his prostate cancer. Others highlighted the current use of Sativex by the National Health Service, with a cost in-excess of £150 for a single bottle of GW Pharmaceuticals patented spray — as-compared to the oil shown to the crowd, with a manufacturing cost of approximately £10."

Can we shut down this embarrassment to Wikimedia yet? Or do we have to let it zombie on to eternity?

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews notified of this discussion. μc8 (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You found a less-than-perfect word choice in an article, and that's the best excuse you can come up with to continue your vendetta against Wikinews? I suppose it's less fundamentally incoherent than that Frankfurtian so-called "op-ed". Still Frankfurtian, though. --Pi zero (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're actively encouraging people to use something to treat their cancer, and attacking existing medical drugs, then that's more than an imperfect word choice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Adam, don't worry; given the inherent dishonesty of Wikinews, we can assume that the alleged "speaker" never said that about prostate cancer in the first place. Remember to always read Wikinews as you would read The Onion and there's no problem. Treat it as satire, everyone else does. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You've put your opinion as a fact. Shows how easy it is to produce groundless biased output.

A cry for attention is incompatible with neutral intercourse. —Gryllida (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another happy Wikinews user! Thanks, but I like salad on my plate, not in my words. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we should care? To be blunt, Wikinews is not a reliable source and so is of no real relevance to us other than as a venue to which we send people who are trying to write personal opinions about current events. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never looked at Wikinews before. I shall never bother again if that's the sort of stuff they do. Like the Daily Mail with a wiki gloss, but without any standards. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, the attacks on Wikinews being blithely bandied about here have nothing to do with reality. --Pi zero (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Wikinews has consistently failed to report relevant and accurate news stories for ten years.[9] The reality is that Wikinews is your personal dictatorship, where all critics are purged, blocked, and ignored. The reality is Wikinews doesn't work and should not be associated with Wikimedia because it is a total embarrassment to the concept of journalism. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Errm, forgive me, but shouldn't a reaction to having published a claim that cannabis cures cancer ("highly misleading" according to Cancer Research UK) a cause for embarrassment and retraction, not bullishness? I hadn't heard of WikiNews before but this exchange seems informative. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Alexbrn. There was no publication of a claim that cannabis cures cancer. There was a publication of a factual report that some nutjob claimed such. The wording was imperfect, especially in that it wasn't proof against willful misreading (so, we've been considering how to address that). For perspective on the willful misreading, you do have to understand that certain parties at Wikipedia have a genunine non-rational vendetta against Wikinews (though there are, just to state the obvious, lots of really great folks here, who keep the place going despite the bad apples). --Pi zero (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots of really great folks keep the place going? In what reality? The site is run by you, and maybe one or two other people, depending on who shows up to patrol the dead site. It's as if a funeral home published a gazette about the dearly departed. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

[Since you've canvassed around your opinion I'll canvas around my response]

The utter baseness of the efforts to suppress the medical use of marijuana cannot be exaggerated. Spiritually rooted in the witch hunts of the Middle Ages and the open racism of the 1920s, they cast aside the work of three millennia of physicians to put forward a faith-based theory that "herbs cannot work", which can be enforced only by open violence against millions of people. Based on an outright lie (not out of character) by Nixon, they 'temporarily' permanently banned medical use of marijuana, then doggedly ensured that NIDA refused to study the mechanism for two decades, insisting that a drug with specific and reproducible effects on the brain literally had no receptor, then used bureaucracy to hold back all practical research for another decade. We don't have any idea of all we have suffered because of this - we don't know what drugs against pain, obesity, inflammatory diseases, sea-sickness or any other nausea, and other common maladies have been lost. There definitely is reason to consider use of cannabis against prostate cancer, though it isn't the first herb I would have thought of for the purpose. While I would not accept an anecdotal account as scientific evidence, I cannot blame a patient who tries using cannabis and sees remission from drawing the personal conclusion that it worked. To assert that Sativex, based on the two most prevalent active chemicals in cannabis, should have effects that cannabis does not, when it was created solely as a method to placate the bureaucracy while extorting a patent toll from ancient medicine... contemptible! But to insist, like a Putin or an Erdogan, that an entire method of distributing news be abolished because they allegedly made a single word error, already corrected (though perhaps not visible via the magic of "Pending Changes") that is worse. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this a joke, because it certainly reads like one? Paul B (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, I doubt it is. Wikinews collects fringe pretty readily, and will aggressively defend even their worst mistakes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to respond to that, since there isn't any actual argument there, but I should clarify that I haven't been meaningfully involved in Wikinews. Wnt (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Just as well you're not trying to add that to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here's a real zinger from 2011.[10] The same Wikinews author gave precedence to a minority fringe opinion which claimed that it was "fairly standard police procedure" to use pepper spray on nonviolent protesters. The only problem was, virtually every mainstream reliable source said the complete opposite ("Our policy is that we do not use pepper spray or Tasers or batons against passively resisting people")[11] and the man who invented the pepper spray product in question even came out and said his product was never designed for that purpose. When the same Wikinews author was confronted, he denied writing it, said he only copyedited, and refused to fix the problem. Please, shut this absurd excuse for journalism down. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The same "minority fringe" opinion appears in a New York Times editorial about the event, which cites quite a few other incidents. [12] Also the title of an article in The Atlantic. [13] Many other hits come up on a search. Even if the editor were wrong to include this statement the way he does, to be taken seriously you would need to (a) cite the actual article [14] and whatever diffs, (b) discuss it at Wikinews, (c) try to show that Wikinews had bad policy or governance and systematically failed to fix it. You can't even get off the starting block here. It's like saying Wikipedia should be abandoned because there's a vandal on it, when it isn't even a vandal. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Double huh? The NYT editorial you cite treats the opinion as a minority one, just as I did. Did you even read it? Wikinews repeated what an AP story about an alleged ex-lieutenant for the Baltimore Police Department named Charles J. Kelly said. I say alleged because back in 2011 I tried to track him down because I couldn't believe what I was reading. As it turns out, there is no mention of a Charles J. Kelly anywhere except for that AP article which hit the wire services. And yet, news story after news story said it was not standard procedure, and this was eventually confirmed as true in the aftermath, so Kelly's statement was not only blatantly false, it was spread around the country by the Associated Press and repeated by Wikinews without any critical judgment or comparison and contrast with other sources. I had no idea Wikinews was an excellent source for propaganda, I thought it was actually trying to write news stories. Anyway, please try to track down this "Charles J. Kelly". I don't even think he exists. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. if you want to see what police do when they're being unusual, look up the video of the events behind Lundberg v. County of Humboldt. Concentrated liquid pepper spray, straight into the protesters' eyes. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with that case, and it's relevant not for the reason you seem to think. First of all, in that case, the police did not spray anything, they applied pepper spray with Q-tip's to the eyes of the protesters. This was recorded on video and is online for anyone to watch. Second of all, this case was cited as the rationale for why it was not standard procedure, since the courts declared it to be excessive force (hence not standard procedure) all the way back in 2005, six years before the incident at UC Davis occurred. Therefore, there was a legal precedent for the police to avoid using excessive force on peaceful protesters. This imaginary "Charles J. Kelly" who claims to have once worked for the police department in Baltimore, doesn't seem the least bit familiar with the law. Finally, these two examples prove what Will Potter has been saying for years about the Green Scare and directly links to what other authors and journalists have alleged about how the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI worked with local law enforcement to use violent methods to crackdown on peaceful Occupy protests. And where the Occupy protests were not peaceful, other journalists claim to have uncovered evidence of agent provocateurs from law enforcement who deliberately incited violent acts to justify a brutal crackdown in the first place. At the end of the day, Wikinews is nothing but an organ of the establishment. It needs to stop pretending to be open to citizen participation, because it most assuredly is not. It has a proven track record of selectively citing sources that make extreme, unverifiable claims while ignoring easy to verify claims that are widely published. In this latest incident report, we have a "reporter" claiming that a protester said cannabis cured his cancer, but did the protester really say that? It's hard to believe because Wikinews cannot be trusted to report news in an accurate manner. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with this. First, the Lundberg v. article says pepper spray was sprayed as well as applied by swab, but I'm not quite sure the point - I gave it as an example of what is unusual and I don't see you disagreeing with that. The point is, if the outlier is there, simply using pepper spray doesn't seem like such an extraordinary claim. Then as for Green Scare, are you saying Wikinews is suppressing mention of that? Or what? Also you sound as if you can't participate there - if there are arbitrary ways in which you're excluded from doing so, that would be a criticism I would be moved by. Wnt (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't go by or depend on what Wikipedia articles say, I go by the actual sources. In this particular case, Lundberg v. County of Humboldt completely refutes the nonsense spread by "Charles J. Kelly" in the Associated Press. It was not standard procedure to spray peaceful protesters, as that case had been declared an example of excessive force six years before the UC Davis incident occurred. I suggest you perform actual research on the UC Davis incident. The majority of reliable law enforcement sources cited on the case explicitly refute and contradict "Charles J. Kelly". Wikinews should never rely on one single source to write an article, yet that's what they did because there was no critical thought put into it, just a rehash and regurgitation of what the AP said without question and without looking at what other sources said. And this is exactly what they did with the cannabis protester. A science journalist would at least illustrate the alleged quote with a brief sentence or two on the scientific consensus regarding cannabis and cancer. Again, Wikinews is Wiki-worthless. As for my participation there, that has nothing to do with this discussion, just as your tangent about the history of cannabis controversy has nothing to do with this thread. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thunderbird (cryptozoology)

Thunderbird (cryptozoology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The bird equivalent of Bigfoot. Claimed sightings and argued existence cited to fringe sources and About.com. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

FAB, Virgil. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Telepathy

User deleting mass material from the telepathy article claiming telepathy has scientific evidence and deleting references as biased "skeptical" sources. Two IPs have also joined in. They may all be the same person. They have been reverted, but it may be worth watching over this. Goblin Face (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese food therapy

This is up for deletion. I strongly doubt that there is any such thing, and that there is nothing more than the kind of folk "eat your carrots' sort of thing that is also found in the west. I personally don't have a lot of time to pursue this but I invite others (who may also be more familiar with the territory anyway) to have a look. Mangoe (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Jean-Émile Charon

A French physicist who has written some new age books. Some strange stuff on his article:

"There are microscopic individualities inside every human. They think, they know, and (they) carry Spirit in the Universe.”[2] Charon chooses to call these individual beings of intelligence, “eons.” They are otherwise known as electrons. Each electron or “eon” is an enclosed space, a thinking entity, intelligence, and even a micro-universe. But this is an inaccurate way of speaking about them, because as Michael Talbot (1991/1992) warns us in The Holographic Universe, “the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them.” [3] Thus, it would be more accurate to think of these beings in terms of wave interference patterns."

"The goal of the electron is developing the order of its Spirit. There are four psychic forces that organize living forms into entities of increasing energy or order: reflection, knowledge, love, and action. As the order grows, so do the psychic properties."

Finding it hard to locate any reliable references in English. Goblin Face (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy advocacy at black mamba

See talk:Black mamba#Homoepathy section. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture

I thought the debate was settling down at TCM but now it was moved to acupuncture. The text is a summary of the body. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that this section title is the article name, and linked to it as such. —Gryllida (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Anons and a couple of logged-in editors forum shopping frantically in an attempt to make the nasty reality-based community go away. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mazzaroth

Had a reversion today back to the fringe-filled version. I can see no evidence that the people whose opinions were quoted (or, in one case, the completely uncited, probable original research reading of the Bible) are notable opinions on the subject. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yin yoga

This is a non-notable article that should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jan Peczkis

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Peczkis

Comment.

jps (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe at Subartu, Sabir people

There's been a good amount of material added to these pages recently pushing the fringe belief that the Bronze Age Subartu are the same people as the 7th century CE Sabir, and are thus an example of continuous Turkish presence in the Near East. There are a great deal of inline cites provided, but following these I find at least one blatant fabrication - the claim that H. Mark Hubey contributed to The Cambridge Ancient History series and that the book supports the Sabir/Subartu connection [15] (also added to Subartu but removed by another editor) - several fringe sources sometimes connected with the Hungarian or Turkish right-wing [16] [17] (in the last the Christian is reliable, but being misrepresented), and a number of scholarly sources that are being misrepresented, such as Dhorme, [18], the Christian linked before, and a group of sources concerning etymology that may be taken out of context, such as [19] [20]. The use of Old Turkic to provide an etymology for a people that preceded Old Turkic by over a thousand years is a sign of sloppiness at best, and illustrates what seems to be the thought process behind the sourcing: Google for anything that looks like Subartu, Sabir, Subar, etc., and assume that it must be making a Subartu-Tukish connection and present it as such. As the editor has a definite WP:IDHT problem, and I would rather not be in an edit war, some more eyes on this would be good. Ergative rlt (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The same issue is also discussed at "Multi-referenced scholarly viewpoint and persistent vandalism" section of Wikipedia: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Lamedumal (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Multi-referenced_scholarly_viewpoint_and_persistent_vandalism. This would certainly mean that user Ergative rlt seems to be the next candidate who has problems with multi-referenced scholarly viewpoints due to his own contradictory viewpoint, which became quite clear when he put his focus on the Turkic and to a lesser extend on the Hungarian theory, instead on the others, such as the Armenian, Kurdish, Slavic or Greek theory. - Hirabutor (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The "multi-referenced scholarly viewpoint" is original research with misleading or fringe cites. And now that Lamedumal has pointed out the RSN discussion, I see that the misrepresentation of Dorme was specifically pointed out there as well, but Hirabutor's added it back. Also, the Slavic and Greek theories appear to be more of Hirabutor's OR, with once again a misleading citation. Ergative rlt (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Lamedumal seems to have misinterpreted Dhorme, since Sabirois etc. lived in classical times and not in the bronze age, as mentioned by Dhorme. - Hirabutor (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Pseudoscientists cat is up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists. QuackGuru (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Starchild skull again

Has been progressively edited over the last few days to be extremely crazy-fringe-theory friendly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Blood Moon Prophecy

• Blood Moon Prophecy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although created in 2009 heavily revised in the last few weeks as it was about the April eclipse. Might be worth putting on watchlists. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Bumping thread. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I've taken on the task of pruning this down to what's actually verifiable from reliable sources and encyclopaedic; ThaddeusB, who added the content I removed, seems to believe that WP:BRD starts with my bold reversion not his bold addition, and I'd appreciate some help explaining WP:ONUS to him. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the article was not created in 2009. It was created about a month ago, by me. Second, I greatly dispute Guy's interpretation of the dispute. ONUS does not give him unlimited rights to delete whatever he wants and make me prove it is worth including. It means he can challenge specific facts that are uncited, not ignore BRD because he feels some details aren't worth covering. He has cut 2/3rds of the article, including tons of material sourced to sources normally considered reliable (Fox News, Washington Post, etc.) Additionally, his edits have introduced factual inaccuracies that I carefully avoided because he insists the details are mere "trivia", but are actually crucial to understanding certain points. We are attempting resolve the issue on talk (while he insists his version must stay in the mean time, ignoring BRD), but I certainly welcome more opinions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Does 'he supposedly had "discovered"'^[21] seem like a neutral tone to you? More generally though, an article about a pseudo-science should give all the space needed to explain its thinking to the reader. I mean, I don't believe a word about astrology, but if I had a reason to draw up someone's natal chart for fiction or comedy, I'd want to be able to find out how to do it right here. There are too many people on this board treating a 'rational' point of view as something to POV-push, rather than as a method of thinking and neutrally evaluating the available evidence, however absurd an idea may be. Wnt (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement then. My problem with Guy's edits is that he has removed all context of the Blood Moon idea, to the point where he has actually introduced factually accuracies about what its proponents believe. I fail to see how that is a "better" article, and how the ONUS is on me to prove (to him) the context is necessary. (I do agree that specific sentence was not ideal and could be better worded.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I mainly removed in-universe cruft sourced to wingnut fundamentalist websites. We must not give undue weight to the opinions of cranks, what is needed is reality-based descriptions of the concept. Through various edits this was being asserted as on a par with end times and armageddon prophecies generally, but as you yourself wrote, there is no evidence it ever gained significant traction. This is a very minor fringe cult notion. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We disagree about what you removed... In the interest of progress, I have proposed rewriting the article to exclude the 2 objectable sources. If you could reply on talk, I'd appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologise, not sure how that happened as I meant that April 2014 lunar eclipse had been created in 2009. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think anyone on Wikipedia who speaks of "cruft" is making bad decisions, no matter what the target of their disdain. Wikipedia contains a lot of data, and much if not most of it seems dull and pointless, but it should be edited with a respect for the effort that was put in to collect it, and I would even say, with respect for the idea that even when we cannot perceive it, the data wants to lead us to insight and understanding. We're here to free the data, to listen to it as we can, to try to see where it is leading. Just because the idea is "astronomically" unlikely doesn't mean that we can't understand where it came from, what it inspires people to do, its effect on the economy, the motivations of its adherents, etc. But we have to understand these concepts.

Hagee's religion may be very uncommon, and repugnant to many of us, but it is still a religion, and like any religion, we should take ample time to go through the concepts it is based on without dismissing them as beneath investigation. Wnt (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Think what you like, it's a temrm of art I learned at Wikipedia and it applies in this case: excessively detailed coverage of trivial topics drawn from sources that have strong associations with he topic, rather than from neutral and independent sources. I woudl not mind betting that more people have heard of this from Wikipedia than form its proponents.. Guy (Help!) 03:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Cremo got added to Paleoanthropology

Someone want to take a look at this?[22] As you likely know, Cremo claims modern humans have existed on Earth for several billion years. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Thiering

Fringe religious writer but at the talk page there's an attempt to remove a sentence about not being accepted by academics, which is explained in detail in the body of the text. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oil Pulling

Oil pulling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aside from the non-WP:MEDRS compliant claims, it seems to be simply an advertisement for Ayurveda.

jps (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies

This edit was a violation of summary. Articles should properly summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Creationist cosmologies

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies

Could use some more comments.

jps (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

UFO sightings in outer space‎

What a horrible article. Appears to be a mix of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, no? Grounds for AFD? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the mistake was not calling it what it is: a List of UFO sightings in outer space. Basically it's a list article masquerading as a subject article that compiles isolated incidents and infers, but stops just short of analyzing, what it all means. I would definitely ditch the lead section, as it's pure SYNTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Barney I actually did not have you on my watch list until now, I had forgot the Yes Sir Boss incident we had as I just don't care about those things. The only thing that matters is improving the main space which should be all of our goals. I hope the next time we meet we will be on the same side. I chose to drop the ANI incident, because ANI prevents meaningful editing I am sure you agree, and was trying to prevent any further issues. Please do not nominate my article because our past differences can cause impartial decisions, if someone else agrees with you let them do it. As of now, I think we should go our separate ways. With regards. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie, I left a message on your talk page. I know that you have been an opponent of fringe theories. Please view any citation every line is directly sourced. I appreciate if further discussion can take place on the article talk page and please let me know of any improvements that can be made. Cheers! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. I gave clear explanations of what problems the article has at the AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's also the second or third time the article has been recreated after being deleted:

• WP:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space
• WP:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space (2nd nomination)

jps (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there was a DRV where the discussion did not address WP:FRINGE or the major reasons why this article is horrible. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space (3rd nomination). jps (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Vibroacoustic therapy, again

User:Cyrinus/sandbox
A userspace copy of the article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibroacoustic therapy. No sooner did I put it up for MfD, the originating editor submitted it to Articles for Creation. How can I advise the heavily backlogged AfC reviewers that the only changes have been the insertion of additional fringe sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Cremo and Paleoanthropology

An editor has added a pov tag to Paleoanthropology on the basis that mainstream archaeology is biased and that Michael Cremo must be included. I've removed it as a misunderstanding of NPOV and the purpose of the article but I expect him to put it back. See Talk:Paleoanthropology#Controversy section Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews boxes

From time to time I do a bit of work on our UFO articles. Many are in the same credulous state they were when written years ago by UFO enthusiasts, so it's not hard to find one that needs attention. Recently, after cleaning up material cited to fringe sources (and worse, fringe interpretations of material published by reliable sources) at Stephenville, TX UFO sightings I noticed a "Wikinews box" directing readers to a related news story, ‪MUFON releases report on UFO sighting in Stephenville, Texas‬, that gives undue weight to a report by MUFON alleging government intimidation and conspiracies. Are these boxes an NPOV workaround, or what? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say yes, read the discussions of Wikinews at WP:RSN. I don't think we should have Wikinews boxes anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I was thinking of the discussion here, see above. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well coincidentally I see consensus at RSN is "wikinews is a user generated source and therefore not reliable per WP:RS and WP:V". Seems clear to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews itself is a workaround. I'd like to have the Wikinews template deleted, myself, but there are a few valid uses from back before it self-destructed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine again

This edit added original research to the lede and made the text unclear. I explained the problems with the edit on the talk page. Also, changing fished out of to extracted is OR. Now the text in the lede is being rearranged out of order and a source previously deleted by User:JzG was restored against WP:CON. Obviously, none of the recent changes to the lede and body were improvements. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Now mass changes to acupuncture are being made to delete text that is critical of acupuncture and to add text that is promotional acupuncture. Also a source previously deleted at TCM was added to acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We're trying to hammer out consensus at the TCM talk page with the help of uninvolved user Richard Keatinge. What you're doing here is WP:Canvassing, and the non-neutral way you present this post here constitutes campaigning. Please stop and participate in finding consensus at the appropriate talk page instead. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Things were already hammered out with the uninvolved editor User:Dominus Vobisdu but you suggested he was not uninvolved. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I think it can be safely established that Dominus Vobisdu is not an uninvolved editor. Please cf. the participants of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to use a non-standard definition of uninvolved. Merely looking at a case and venturing an opinion, is not being involved. You also appear not to understand that this is precisely the right place to ask for more eyes when fringe and pseudoscientific theories are in play, so is not canvassing. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked the fact that this "uninvolved" editor has in fact been boldly edit-warring the page since last year. -A1candidate (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

One edit at Acupuncture does not make someone involved at TCM. The recent strange edits makes you at least involved a acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See his editing history again and come back once you've educated yourself.-A1candidate (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So you did make a false accusation without evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Evidence is found in user's edit history -A1candidate (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

wp:Boomerang, anyone? It appears that A1 is referring to his exchange (bordering on ew) with DV last August at Accupuncture. It seems rather obvious which editor was attempting to remove reliable sourcing. Both could have made more constructive edit comments, but really, DV simply prevented a fringe POV push. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So how does that make DV "uninvolved"? -A1candidate (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, wp:involved is just a shortcut to Wikipedia:administrators, which also directly addresses the exception for admins dealing with edit wars. That said DV's actions were not admin, they were just what any admin should have done. Sitting back and watching your POV push go ahead unchallenged is in no way required of other editors, and stopping such should not be construed as substantial involvement in an article. To do so would rapidly deplete the pool of the uninvolved. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't make him any less uninvolved. There's a difference between reverting vandalism and reverting because of a content dispute. -A1candidate (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see wp:BRD. Note that it is not spelled BRRD. Anyhow, this was last August that he prevented your change against consensus. It's about time you dropped the stick, don't you think? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither me nor DV are pushing for any content changes right now. If you think that's my aim, please re-read the entire discussion. -A1candidate (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case what was the point of your post of 11:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) above? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some who are pushing for strange changes at acu and at TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: Purpose of my post was to point out that it's wrong for QuackGuru and Guy to label DV as an "uninvolved" editor. Such a statement is factually incorrect, as DV's edit history shows. -A1candidate (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You haven't shown DV's edit history of edit warring at acu. One or a few edits at acu does not make someone involved at TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See his editing history again and come back once you've educated yourself -A1candidate (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sending people off on fishing expeditions does not constitute the presentation of evidence. Please either provide links or drop it.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Fishing expeditions? I was requesting that he check DV's edit history before claiming uninvolvement. -A1candidate (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So where is the alleged involvement at Traditional Chinese medicine? No evidence has been provided. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

How about doing a simple search of his edit history? -A1candidate (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a simple search of his alleged edit at TCM and came of with 0 edits. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See THIS for more active TCM involvement. And don't forget Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 11. -A1candidate (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You did not provide evidence of any involvement at the TCM page. But I provided evidence there was no involvement at the TCM page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture aren't TCM? -A1candidate (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think TCM equals acu that I would expect you to restore this text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Being a sub-family doesn't mean being equal. -A1candidate (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Lets's get back to the topic at hand. I see you and others have been busy deleting stuff you don't like from the article. More of the same kind of thing happened at TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont speak for other editors, but if you're wondering why I removed your speculative theory, please see WP:FRINGE -A1candidate (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It was not a speculative theory. There are lots of sources covering this. See (PMID 10501382). Now you have confirmed it should be restored because it is not a theory. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The source says: "We hypothesized that there might have been a medical system similar to acupuncture". It's not even a theory but a hypothesis. Can you show me a better, more conclusive reliable source? -A1candidate (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Were are using mainstream independent sources for the text. There is no fringe theory. It is not about fringe. You are misusing fringe. QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you failed to provide a better source to support your fringe theory. Are there any authoritative mainstream institutions giving credulence to your FRINGE theory? Apparently not. -A1candidate (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream independent sources are not good enough for you but on Wikipedia we report what the mainstream independent sources say. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can find mainstream sources providing ample hard evidence for your theory, then we may include it in an appropriate section. -A1candidate (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is another mainstream indepedent source for you to chew on. See (PMID 15103027). There is no policy on Wikipedia that says an editor must provide ample hard evidence to repeat what mainstream researchers say. We are not using fringe sources or blogs. The mainstream view is that there is evidence that suggested it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference cited by the authors is exactly the same as the one you previously showed me. And notice how they use the word "speculation" to describe this hypothesis. -A1candidate (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You deleted the images and the text only because you don't like what the reliable sources said. Whatever the mainstream view says we report them on Wikipedia. I explained this before. See WP:IDHT. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG should apply here - I removed it because it is a speculative theory that is not backed up by hard evidence. See WP:IDHT. -A1candidate (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is backed up by mainstream research. The sources cited was being done neutrally and appropriately. The author Ersnt (PMID 15103027), for example, is serious mainstream researcher. The results should not be rejected; editors were only giving the weight it is due. There is nothing extremist or flawed about the research. Ernst's work is critical of CAM, and he gets criticized back; there is nothing surprising about this. Obviously, the article represents serious research that should not be ignored by any neutral summary of acupuncture. It is irrelevant whether you personally disagree with Ernst or other mainstream researchers. Removing the images and text will not bring justice to a serious encyclopedia. What was being portrayed was in accordance with WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting Ernst's qualifications. He himself described the theory as speculation, and that's why we do not give undue weight to it. -A1candidate (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"These tattoos might indicate that a form of stimulatory treatment similar to acupuncture developed quite independently of China."[23] This is beyond speculation at this point. You seem to have a personal disagreement with Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Speculation surrounds the tattoo marks seen on the ‘Ice Man’ who died in about 3300 bce and whose body was revealed when an Alpine glacier melted." [24] This is pure speculation at this point. You seem to have a personal disagreement with Wikipedia policy. -A1candidate (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

When this is repeatedly discussed by independent reliable sources we are allowed to discuss them here on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The only source you've provided is a hypothesis in The Lancet, which Ernst correctly classifies as speculation -A1candidate (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ersnt went on to say "These tattoos might indicate that a form of stimulatory treatment similar to acupuncture developed quite independently of China."[25] That's more than a minority opinion of speculation. This is the mainstream view. I told you this before. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ernst is describing the speculative theory to the reader. This is the mainstream view. I told you this before. -A1candidate (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not about fringe. This is about you have a personal disagreement with the mainstream view. This is about due weight according to RS. So far you have not given respect to the mainstream view. User:BullRangifer said You are the real pseudoskeptic here, and one with a huge COI. As a professional acupuncturist, you should not be editing acupuncture and TCM subjects so boldly, if at all. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As stated by Ernst, the mainstream view is that your fringe theory is a speculative one. -A1candidate (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We are allowed to report on the mainstream view as long as we use independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The only source you've provided is a hypothesis in The Lancet, which Ernst correctly classifies as speculation. -A1candidate (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not provide only one source. According to your own comment that is more than one source. The Lancet and Ernst are not a minority opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You provided two links - the former is a speculative hypothesis and the latter correctly describes it accordingly. -A1candidate (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

But I previously told you that these statements are not a minority opinion and Ernst went on to say "These tattoos might indicate that a form of stimulatory treatment similar to acupuncture developed quite independently of China."[26] QuackGuru (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't make it any less speculative -A1candidate (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Even allegations are allowed on Wikipedia as long as they are reliably sourced such as UFO sighting (Unidentified flying object#United Kingdom). QuackGuru (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

break

Since the PS classification seems to be - for some reason - in doubt, I added a reinforcing source. But it was quickly reverted. In general, it strikes me there are too many editors at work in these subjects with one hand on the keyboard and another on their wallet. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The source you added says: "The vacuum created by China's failure to adequately support a disciplined scientific approach to traditional Chinese medicine has been filled by pseudoscience". This sentence is very confusing; I'm not sure I grasped its precise meaning. Why did the failure of China to "adequately support a disciplined scientific approach to traditional Chinese medicine" create a vacuum? Wouldn't we think that the vacuum already existed from the very start? And why should this vacuum be filled by pseudoscience only after China's failure? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that TCM was pseudoscience all along?

Anyway, to avoid further wars over this ambiguous source I reworded your statement and re-added the source to the text [27]. I'd like to point out that if TCM is as universally excepted to be pseudoscience as some editors claim, why do the only two reliable sources we have use such complicated, unusual and ambiguous sentence structures for their statements? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Confusing to you maybe (cognitive dissonance?); but plain enough I think: when evidence became recognized as important for medicine, the yawning gap in TCM became apparent and a load of codswallop was conjured up by interested parties to fill it (something we find in numerous fringe journals). Weaselly, you've attributed the source's statement making it seem like this fact is somehow seriously contested, something that should be guarded against. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"The yawning gap in TCM became apparent and a load of codswallop was conjured up by interested parties to fill it..." You seem to be smart so I'll refrain from detailedly pointing how illogical this is in regards to TCM, which has been dragging its superstitious codswallop theories along since more than 2000 years without any significant new codswallop being conjured up since the time when evidence became recognized as important for medicine... Anyway, concerning your allegations of me doing anything "weaselly", please read this dead-on reply from Dr. Richard Keatinge to a similar allegation from QuackGuru. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We should avoid WP:WEASEL wording, which your vague attribution of a claim to unknown voices ("has been described as") was, especially since the source is straight-out assertive. The point the source is making is that it is only within the context of a "a disciplined scientific approach" that pseudoscience has come to be (for example, by being given the trappings of science in fringe journals I suppose). Before that, it was drifting along as untested nonsense with no intersection with science (your "pre-scientific" maybe?). But if you have a problem with the source's view, that's not something to be resolved here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

True. How you come to the conclusion that your source is "straight-out assertive" is beyond me, but this is not the place to discuss it. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The source has: "The vacuum created by China's failure to adequately support a disciplined scientific approach to traditional Chinese medicine has been filled by pseudoscience". That's a straight-out assertion. Why are you so keen that Wikipedia doesn't relay this obvious information? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Because this as un-straight-out as it can be. The source doesn't even strictly say that TCM is pseudoscience (why?). I talks about some newly created pseudoscience in some vacuum which inexplicably was created recently. WP:FRINGE emphasizes that "ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources". This source you have here is cryptic and imprecise, and tries to shirk a clear assertion, just like the other source (the Nature editorial). Why is that? --Mallexikon (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't say it "is" pseudoscience - we follow the sources and say it mainly is. Or maybe that it's "full of pseudoscience". Or somesuch. It's so obvious the sources are probably just trying to find an elegantly varied form of expression. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This was a violation of assert. This was also another disruptive violation of assert by Mallexikon. QuackGuru (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich

Can someone have a look at this edit? Looks suspicious to me. - DVdm (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, that article's meant to be a GA? It's promoting the hell out of orgone quackery, with nary a dissent. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mazzaroth#Interpretations

Can I get some more opinions here, please? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine

An editor is trying to force a fringe journal into the lede along with other controversial text. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine for previous WP:CON on the source written by the trade. The other text is from a personal website that may not be RS. I think none of the changes improved the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Some déjà vu there. One would have thought these POV-pushers would have been around long enough to grasp some basics of writing Wikipedia articles - like that it's a bad idea to load content into the lede that doesn't reflect what's in the body. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn, take a look at this. After being warned he is contuning to violate the 3RR rule. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The text "Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[8]" was deleted from the lede again. The text is obviously sourced and is part of the summary of Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You try to include the statement "TCM is largely pseudoscience" to the lede of this article. I actually agree that TCM probably is just pseudoscience, but your and my opinion doesn't matter here. We're here to write a good article for the general reader. Throwing around derogatory judgements like this when we don't have a good source for it is definitely not going to help our cause. We're not here to deliver judgements. We're here to deliver facts.

As a source, you want to use this: "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." This source doesn't even really make it a fact that TCM is pseudoscience; it only theorizes that it is the most obvious answer. For sure, this source is far from asserting that TCM is widely considered a pseudoscience in the scientific community.

When I tried to compromise and change the statement in the lede to: "TCM has been labeled as pseudoscience" you opposed me. You don't really participate at the talk page discussion either. Once again, I don't see you being willing to work cooperatively on this encyclopaedia at all. I opened WP:DR about this. C u there. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Traditional_Chinese_medicine -- Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ken Ham

There is currently an edit war going on over adding the category pseudoscientist to Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and John Baumgardner (and probably others) The argument has reached the level of absurdity to the point the following is posted on the talk page "Whether proof that a subject engages in pseudoscience allows us to add him to the "Pseudoscientists" category (which I dispute on the basis of WP:BLPCAT" A report has been filed at 3RRNB here and as I strongly suspect meat/sock puppetry as SPI here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This is really something for the BLP noticeboard. The question is whether a living person who promotes something characterised as "pseudoscience" should be placed in Category:Pseudoscientists, particularly when (in the cases being discussed) there is no WP:RS that explicitly uses that pejorative term for those people. In any case, in my view the "pseudoscientist" label provides no information, simply disapproval. Combating pseudoscience is best done by addressing the issues. -- 101.117.28.73 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an IP deleting the category pseudoscientist from the articles. QuackGuru (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And either the IP above is a sock or a meat puppet, we've suddenly have several arrive editing solely on this issue. Besides this one, we have 101.117.30.177, 101.117.58.97 and 71.246.158.7 - socks or meat puppets all it seems. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP here claims that no reliable sources refer to him as a pseudoscientist. I find this hard to believe, and we don't (can't) provide inline citations for categories. Find a source, put it on the talk page, and if the IP continues to revert and change his/her arguments, semi-protect the page. BLP is a weak argument here. 182.249.241.22 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"AIG promotes pseudoscience." -- National Center for Science Education. (That's a paraphrase, but Ctrl+F the word pseudoscience.) DONE. 182.249.241.40 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Somatotype and constitutional psychology

Sourced content being removed, unparaphrased content with improperly formatted refs being added. Article needs some work. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Some "mind-body intervention" articles

Resolved

 – 1 redir, 3 deletes

I WP:PROD'd these four some days ago:

1. Soul retrieval (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
2. Sandra Ingerman (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
3. Kinetic Forgiveness (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
4. The Slide Effect (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The proposed deletion of the first two has been contested. Are these articles in fact salvageable? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Soul retrieval should be deleted (take it to Afd if necessary), only the fringe writer Robert Monroe is used on the article and this is unacceptable. It does not seem a notable topic. Kinetic Forgiveness and Slide Effect cannot find any reliable references for, they should also be deleted as well. There are some possible sources (magazine and newspaper articles) for Sandra Ingerman, but she doesn't appear that notable. Goblin Face (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I redirected it. There is, as you say, no evidence of independent significance. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Also two G11s and once I removed the "references" to Amazon on Sandra Ingerman (She wrote a book! Reference: Link to an Amazon page where you can buy the book!) there's nothing independent of the source, so I AfD'd it. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Drama of the Lost Disciples

Fringe book, needs attention. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Do objective secondary sources mention this work? None come up after a cursory search. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be an important work in British Israelism in that it's often referred to, and I found one book on Boudica which has a brief mention of it. It looks as though 3rd party sources which discuss it in this context are thin on the ground. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's a good source [28] albeit a passing mention. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Autism Research Institute

The Autism Research Institute article has been edited by four single purpose accounts to the point where it is just an ad. The problem with this article is that the ARI have perhaps toned down some of their extreme views and now people that work at ARI (one admitted this!) are editing this article to reflect their new website. Bhny (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted back to the version just before they showed up. It was too much trouble to sort out any positive edits made then (my sense is that they were minimal and probably mostly to the new stuff). Mangoe (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And unsurprisingly I've been reverted. At least they're now responding on the talk page. Mangoe (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I formatted all the refs that were there and added appropriate tags. A new editor reverted that and made multiple edits with false edit summaries. I have filed a AN3RR report and rolled back their edits. I posted a detailed explanation on the talk page of the problems with the article. I also added a ref to a 2007 publication by ARI that recommends chelation for autism and cites Wakefield among other things including providing "research data". I mentioned the article on Project Medicine. Not sure what else I can do. After some time for comment I will cut all the biomedical bu.. information lacking MEDRS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neuroresearch, feel free to pitch in. I warned all four accounts for tendentious editing and fringe POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Gary Null

This article has been butchered today by what appears to be a fringe sympathiser. His edits are also peppered by the 'minor' edit tag, and they are far from minor. I would welcome another opinion or two on my opinion. Thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't sleep, so I reverted all the guff. It was like a CV. Happy to be corrected though. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• The responsible user is Ian McGrady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See also Patrick M. McGrady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a former colleague of Null's, edited by the same person. That article, by the way, needs work, it described the subject as a "science writer" and "Founding Director of CANHELP, a cancer help and referral service" - CANHELP is actually an alternative cancer misinformation provider. He's also a contributor to Nathan Pritikin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with whom Patrick McGrady also worked. So there's not only fringe POV-pushing here, but also a significant COI. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, CANHELP as it was run by my Dad was a cancer information and referral service which spoke of conventional therapies in addition to naturopathic and non-toxic, non-invasive therapies. I don't know what it is today as I don't live in the home office any more and have no contact or interest in it. PMM was indeed a science writer who wrote the critically acclaimed "The Youth Doctors" in addition to the best-selling "The Pritikin Program for Diet and Exercise", both of which are concerned with scientific subject matter (health/longevity/nutrition).

I agree that that particular edit of Null was CV-ish, which included a long list of the accomplishments - I thought I'd go find the references after getting the map laid out. Next time I'll sandbox it or something. But I reversed your total, blind reversion because there was otherwise good edits in there that were warranted. I'd also suggest, as an editor, trying to see what was being accomplished and attempt to assist realizing the same goal of a fair, balanced, accurate, objective article rather than rip/revert which is essentially needlessly and completely destructive. The null article stood biased for a long time -- where was your mighty pen then? Had you visited it before? Were you aware of how biased it was and how unrepresentative of the total picture it presented?

I apologize for the misuse of the "minor" edit tag.

As to whether CANHELP provides misinformation today I do not know, but that is a libelous statement if untrue.

It appears you yourself have your own biases.

hello 17:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian McGrady (talk • contribs)

Yes, we have a strong bias towards reality, as established by the scientific community. The scientific consensus, by definition, embodies all relevant significant opinions. You may not edit these articles. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

Can someone please give me an opinion on this. There is a physics section on the psychokinesis article which represents the scientific consensus on the subject I.e. physics does not support psychic phenomena. The problem is that an IP keeps adding in fringe references claiming scientists believe quantum physics supports psychokinesis, I have reverted one of his edits already which was sourced to a spiritualist writer. But look at this edit here [29] he has now added and changed a reference to Victor Stenger which is a reliable source but I believe this is misleading because Stenger is very much against psychic phenomena. The source is being used to indicate Olivier Costa de Beauregard believes concepts of quantum mechanics support psychic phenomena but this is a serious fringe position. I think it should be removed as it's misleading to the article. Any thoughts? Goblin Face (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotected to give you a chance to sort out the crap. The IP can make his case on Talk if he thinks he has something to contribute. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this I have fixed the issue. Goblin Face (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Rajesh Shah

A promotional biography of an Indian homoeopath. Possibly autobiographical. Certainly non-compliant with WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Citizendium as not a failure.

It's hard to find sources that evaluate Citizendium in the past five years and don't declare it a failure. But it's not covered much either, s it's a failure.

But one editor really objects to the idea of using reliable sources to say that - even when no alternative views can be found. See Talk:Larry Sanger. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It's evolution 101: in order to become extinct one does not have to "fail", but only be less successful than its competition. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Russell Targ

There has been some problems on this article, Targ has been edit-warring and this time he is deliberately using his account and his IP, please see the latest comments on the talk-page. Goblin Face (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Also WP:Help desk#My 23 years of research at Stanford Research Institute has suddenly been defamed and libeled on my bio page where he is appealing for help. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Biblical Mount Sinai with added Velikovsky

I've just noticed that a recent edit has added catastrophist material by the Velikovskian Alfred de Grazia. Does anyone have the time to review the recent expansion of this article? Thanks.

It looks like it might have been copied from here, though I can't be sure which way the copying has been done.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is and am kicking myself for not remembering that I've warned this editor over copyvio before. Between me and Vsmith I think we've removed it all. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What to do with the fringe still in the article?

I've started a section at Talk:Biblical Mount Sinai asking how to handle the fringe. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Jared Taylor

Bringing this here as an IP hopper or meat puppet is mass deleting material[30] some of which mentions pseudo-scientific material. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What is a phenomenon?

Phenomenon usually means an empirical event for which there is evidence beyond anecdote.

However, were there other "phenomena" during the Crucifixion of Jesus? Eclipses? Tearing of the Temple Curtain? Perhaps.... they were reported, though there is no corroborating evidence. The term is probably not properly used in our article, and the article also seems to delve into rather tenuous territory with guesses as to what actually occurred and what didn't.

Some users, including Ἀλήθεια (talk · contribs) and HokieRNB (talk · contribs), seem convinced that these are well-documented phenomena. This reminds me a lot of the "UFOs as phenomena" wars of some years past.

Help?

Not sure where else to turn. This is a word usage issue and seems vaguely pedantic.

jps (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

They're phenomena within the world of the crucifixion narrative; it would be the POV of the true believer to insist on wording that made them seem unambiguously "real" here. For the things being discussed (ripping of the veil, etc.) something like "Coincident events in the narrative" would be NPOV, but lacks elegance. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Alex, basically. They have to be attributed as being phenomena reported as such in the biblical account, an not stated unequivocally as being actual historical occurrences. We don't do biblical literalism here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel like eliminating the term "phenomenon" is good enough. "Other events during the crucifixion" might work, though it seems to imply that these events definitely occurred. jps (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I just checked the Crucifixion of Jesus article, and it seems only "darkness during the day" is described, and attributed to "Mark". Maybe simply changing the title of that section to "Biblical phenomena..." would work there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems the term "biblical phenomenon" is most commonly used to mean something slightly different. jps (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Note there is a separate article at Crucifixion darkness. The use of the word phenomena at Phenomena during the crucifixion is a bit odd since that section treats the darkness as a semi-scientific claim to be explored and analyzed, while the temple veil rip, earthquake, and resurrection of the dead claims are treated as biblical symbols. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Other reported anomalies"? "Reported supernatural signs"? There's a reason they call it a "faith", after all. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Phenomena reported in scripture" might work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much what's there in the article text as of now. "The synoptic gospels state", "Mark mentions", "John mentions", "In the synoptic narrative". The subhead is ok in that context IMO. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

BOLDly renamed the section "Signs and symbols" as it's a better fit for the "miraculous signs" and "symbolic" events being discussed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC) It didn't take, guess I assumed the article was written from the point of view of religious beliefs, and if so, phenomena is a bit misleading. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The starting definition of "phenomenon" being used here seems to me to be too strong. I personally think "signs" is a better word since after all the point of these, um, phenomena as they appear in scripture is that they signify the the magnitude and importance of Jesus' death. "Symbols" tends to ring alarms because historically the word has been used to dismiss without consideration the reality of the events/phenomena/whatever. But I wouldn't object to "phenomena". The naturalistic explanations need to be segregated into a "some have tried to explain" section following an explanation of what the signs signify. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Open to suggestions, see the Talk page. My impression is the article can't seem to decide what it is. Some sections are written as sheer biblical literalism and others offer secular explanations of "phenomenon" that just happen to sync up with dogma. So it could use some help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS denialism

I'm trying to make the lead of the HIV/AIDS denialism state that the view is non-scientific. An editor (who actually agrees that is non-scientific) thinks we can wait until paragraph two. I strongly believe the first sentence of a fringe or pseudoscientific topic should state that it is such.Bhny (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? Actually giving reasons for your beliefs might be helpful. You've made no rational response to anything I've said on the HIV/AIDS denialism talk page, even though I've tried to explain in detail what is wrong with your position. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I gave reasons as have others on the talk page. I'll restate them: "Normally, the opening paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article."[[31]] The most important part of the article is that it is a non-scientific view. As someone said on the talk page, many people don't get past the first paragraph. Bhny (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Policy: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects ..." Can't be much clearer or more prominent than stating it first up, I'd have thought. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please review the discussion on the talk page. Something like the language Bhny wants to use might be acceptable, but I don't think the exact wording he added is appropriate. It needs to be improved on. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a single word "non-scientific" I added, 14 letters and a hyphen.[[32]] I'm not sure why it needs pages of justification. It was not "language" and "wording" it was a single word. Perhaps this word could be improved on. Try removing the hyphen or something. I'm done with this. Bhny (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it was language; a word is language, what do you think? You'd do better to make any further comments on the article's talk page, rather than here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No Bhny (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few suggestions of alternative wording on the talk page. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Astrology in the Bible

Am I right in thinking this is entirely original research? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jews and Communism

There's a fairly extensive discussion going on at Talk:Jews and Communism, which includes the issue of whether or not the article's subject is WP:FRINGE. Fresh eyes familiar with the policy could be helpful.

--Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

One problem is the title...WP:AT tells us to avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. The current title certainly appears biased, and it encourages people to add Fringe material. So one of the first things I would suggest is a rethinking of the title. A re-thinking of the title may also help focus the article on those aspects of the topic that are not Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination). Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_for_2_editors also relevant. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Flood geology

I've just restored a large amount of material removed from the article. There's a discussion at the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion at Jimbo's page to "widen wikipedia's coverage'

The discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 163#Looking for an opinion on scope of Wikipedia's coverage maybe be relevant to WP:FRINGE. Some sort of way of allowing articles that don't meet our notability requirements. I don' know if the discussion really matters as I don't think it will gain much support, but.... 20:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

American Indian creationism

Just created this as a stub. I've added some sources on the talk page. Note that although this is clearly fringe we need to keep it balanced, not just the skeptics view. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to cover this under, say, Native American creation myths as a subsection? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this subject is notable to have it's own article. Michael Shermer in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience covers the topic. Kenneth Feder also might be a useful source. Goblin Face (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I did check first to make sure there were sufficient sources to make it notable. I think the ones I've added and mentioned on the talk page are enough for that. Feder's books are ridiculously priced, I must ask him why. There's a 2013 edition out but I can't even afford the Kindle edition. I have the one before but it isn't indexed. Since deLoria is listed as a reference he must discuss him. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Feder's Encyclopedia of dubious archaeology is from a publisher whose target audience is libraries and not the general market, so it's priced accordingly. We've got it here, and it doesn't appear to have any relevant material for this article, unfortunately. Gamaliel (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Kenneth Feder in his book Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology mentions the fringe beliefs of Jeffrey Goodman [33] on pages 8-10 in a section called "American Genesis". This extreme fringe idea seems to be that humans originated in North America. Although "American Indian Creationism" is not strictly discussed by Feder in that book, he mentions it in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience edited by Michael Shermer in a chapter called Psuedoarcheaology: Native American Myths a Test Case on pages 556-566 where he discusses the claims of Deloria and Goodman influencing American Indian Creationism. Goblin Face (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The chapter can be found online here [34], scroll to page 560 to a section called "Indian Origins" this is directly relevant to the article, this section discusses American Indian creation stories in relation to creationist claims, and mentions the views of Deloria and Goodman. Goblin Face (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The American Indian creationism of Deloria and Goodman is also mentioned in Human Evolution: A Guide to the Debates by Brian Regal. pp. 168-170. [35] Goblin Face (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Martin Gardner

Fringe writers being used as references on Martin Gardner's article as criticism. A large quote from Colin Wilson has been added as a source [36] which looks undue. There is also a reference being used George P. Hansen (a parapsychologist) for the claim that Gardner endorsed a psychic. Considering Hansen has a record it appears of making things up about skeptics [37] I think the Hansen source should be deleted. It's also self-published. Any thoughts on this? Goblin Face (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Russia

User:Avaya1 is changing the demographics section of the mentioned article. His/her edits inflate the numbers of Jews in Russia to one million simply because the chief rabbi of Russia estimated so. This is despite the fact that this rabbi's figure isn't accepted by anyone but himself. Khazar (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should stick to better sources. Especially since the source mentioned seems to admit himself it is a guesstimate. Also, the criteria for Who is a Jew are likely not the same in government statistics as the rabbi's criteria. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind that information being present in the article. The big problem is that it's being written in the infobox as a primary figure. If it was written as a secondary figure or in an appropriate section, then it wouldn't be too lowbrow. The reason I initially reverted the edit was because of overreacting. Khazar (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

These are still guesstimates, necessarily so since after the fall of the Soviet Union, ethnic definitions in census surveys began to be dropped, and the infobox whatever the figures, should add 'guesstimates vary:...' or something of that sort. The reason is that, as usual, you have several overlapping categories (a) self-descriptors (complicated by political motivations: a Jewish identity can give you aliyah rights); (b) rabbinic calculations which however confuse (c) religious Jews (d) people of Jewish descent on either sides (which in orthodox rabbinical thinking is problematical, but is used because it tries to guess the numbers by descent that, with appropriate measures, can re-enter the fold. There was an old premise, used by statisticians as a rule-of-thumb, that Moscow's Jewish population represents roughly 10% of the Federation's Jewish population. Moscow was one of the great capitals of Eastern Jewry; and there is a distinct Moscow Jewish dialect often used, among Jews, but also by non-Jewish Muscovites, as a marker of identity. In 2002, that population was 79,359, according to the full table for that year by Jews in all of the Federation can be found here. In 2010, due to emigration that went down to about 50,000 (Ethnic groups in Moscow). But YIVO cites the same census for 2002 as indicating 148,000 Jews lived in Moscow. One must again assume a conflict between self-descriptors (the lower figure). The rule of thumb would then give us anything from a half million to 1,500,000 for the whole Federation, depending on what classification is used (self-description/ ascription by descent). All this is WP:OR however, useful to indicate the order of confusion. The rule-of-thumb, given the patterns of internal immigration post 1989 and external emigration (aliyah etc) is no longer valid, since Mark Kupovetsky, a demographer, says Moscow's figure equals half of the Federation's population these days, and St Petersburg's 20%. His guestimate based on the 2010 census should probably be used because he is director of biblical and Judaic studies at the Russian State University. According to his preliminary estimate in October 2010 he believes the current census will show 40,000 to 60,000 fewer Jews than the 233,000 Jews from the most recent Russian census, in 2002. The first post-World War II census, in 1959, revealed 875,000 Jews. From this one can see that figures vary from the Rabbi's 900,000 to Kupovetsky's 233,000 a vast difference that requires wikipedia editors to adopt a span of figures of the kind given in these and other sources.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Throughout Soviet times, it was optional to list your nationality as 'Jewish' as opposed to 'Russian' on official documents (e.g. birth certificates), so a large proportion of the population opted for 'Russian' as their nationality (and doing so was lightly encouraged by the Soviet authorities, and became increasingly common as the years progressed). The same voluntary choice is available in the census up to today, and people of Jewish descent will regularly give their nationality as 'Russian'. (Just as a large proportion of American Jews would describe their nationality as 'American'). It's not even asked as a religious question, but rather one of choosing between mutually exclusive 'nationalities'. Avaya1 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the estimate of the community itself - he says in the second source that 'we estimate the community is over a million'. This is the head of community, the Chief Rabbi of Russia, and the head of the FJCR. And it has been repeated many times. Objecting to it on the basis that it is a 'fringe theory' is bizarre. How is the official position of the community conceivably counted as a 'fringe theory'? The ~ in front shows that it is a rough estimate. The variety of different estimates can be listed in the infobox (prefaced by the statement: 'different estimates have been given'), but removing the estimate of the community's own officials makes no sense. The reason for the discrepancy is partly that the census asked only nationality, but also depends on whether they are including first or second or third generation Jews (the larger figure is referring to the number of people with Jewish grandparents). Avaya1 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

'Community'(here, the head of a community's personal opinion) estimates are not considered to be reliable by wikipedia. There are statistics from research groups or the states involved, and we use these. You did not apparently, in any case, note that the estimate by Mark Kupovetsky cited for the 200,000 figure comes from the director of biblical and Judaic studies at the Russian State University for the Humanities. Secondly, Israel does not classify as 'Jews' 240,000 who made aliyah (26%) of the 979,000 who emigrated after 1990. Rabbis in Israel invoke halakha for this distinction: what does our rabbi here invoke to include everyone with a Jewish ancestor as a Jew? If his definition is not the one current in Israeli rabbinical circles, it does look very much as though it is a fringe estimate, since it has no basis in the statistics of official censuses, and diverges strongly from Kupovetsky's estimate (the rabbi's figure almost doubles the official figure given in the Russian census for 1989, 551,047, on the eve of an emigration that then reduced the community by 40%-50%. See Noah Lewin-Epstein, Paul Ritterband,Yaacov Ro'i (eds.) Russian Jews on Three Continents: Migration and Resettlement, Routledge 1997 p.150)Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking further, the situation of that infox box (what does 'enlarged' mean? All the figures are at variance). The 2010 census counted (according to M. Wesley Shoemaker, 'Russia and The Commonwealth of Independent States 2013, Rowman and Littlefield, 2013 p.110) 150,000 Jews, or 265,000 (according to the European Jewish Conference figure here), which however is oddly higher than the 2002 figure of 233,000, of 8 years earlier (oddly because emigration continued). One Jewish source said 3 million. In another the Muscovite population was put 5 times higher than the latest official estimate because someone local Jewish organization had calculated it (a quarter of a million) by consulting 'Jewish-sounding names' in the Moscow directory, which is bizarrely stupid! You can't have a gap of that size and be credible. So the whole thing should be reorganized with official statistics, and Jewish demographer results, with no material cited from sources that fail one of those two criteria. The 'private figures' or personal guesses bby people like Berel Lazar are also influenced by donor prospects: the higher the estimation, the more funds (so many sources report), and must, in lieu of acceptable data, be dismissed as fringe speculation, esp. since it seems to be based on surveys of names and highly subjective, certainly not halakhic, ideas of who is Jewish.Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to chime in here after this was mentioned at my web page. Yes, 'enlarged' confused me and doesn't belong in the infobox. Infoboxes are problematic enough without adding words that don't have an obvious meaning. Nishidani raises good points about the Chief Rabbi's estimate. I wouldn't want to use the Pope's estimate of the number of Roman Catholics either. We should only use census or academic sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The estimate of the Catholic Church for the number of Catholics would hardly come under WP:Fringe - their estimate wouldn't necessarily be correct, but certainly it would count as a notable and interesting estimate. These estimates are not the personal estimates of the Chief Rabbi, but the estimates of the official (government recognised) centralized body of the Jewish community (of which he is a part). E.g. http://www.jewish.ru/news/cis/2008/02/news994259285.php

In such a case as Russia, the census data is known to be completely misleading, since, unlike censuses in other countries, it asks people to choose between the mutually exclusive 'nationalities' of either 'Jewish' or 'Russian'. Across the Soviet period, a large proportion of Jews counted their nationality as 'Russian' in censuses and official documents, as they were encouraged to do so. The distinction between core and enlarged is used by DellaPergola for his estimates (I agree applying it to the rabbinate's estimate is not essential). As for Nishidani's comments. The rabbinate's estimate is referring to Halakhic Jews only, so it's not a definition in anyway at odds with the Israeli rabbinate. The speculation about donor funds and telephone directories and so on is just that - speculation. Avaya1 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

To repeat, how governments and various interested parties interpret who is a Jew and not a Jew is completely subjective since (a) geneticists (b) halakhic lawyers (c) various reform sects (b) states view it differently. The Russian statistics reflect self-descriptors, all others represent exo-descriptors. The former is accurate as to how people perceive their identity, the latter suffes wild swings depending on who wants to push the numbers up or down. We are obliged to stick to official statistics because the rabbis can't make up their minds between 500,000, 1 million and 3 millions, and their arguments are, at that, completely non-halakhic and therefore self-contradictory. People consult info boxes for basic facts, not speculative guesses that vary wildly. The various guesses go into the body of the work, not in the infbox, and 'enlarged' has to go out as utterly incomprehensible.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. This seals it, in my view, and the figures on that page, consequentially, all need revision.

'In the face of ample data pointing to a demographic collapse of Jewish population in the countries comprising the former Soviet Union, wishing thinking persists'. With regard to the Russian Federation, for instance, highly inflated figures purporting to be the "real" number o Jews -ranging from 1,000,,000-2,000,000 to the more fantastical figure of 10 million-continue to circulate online and in the popular press, even as he number of pupils in Jewish schools and the roster of those receiving aid from Jewish charities continue to decline. The problem is exacerbated when erroneous figures find their way into scholarly publications.' Mark Tolts,'Sources for the Demographic Study of the Jews in the Former Soviet Union,' in Uzi Rebhun (ed.) The Social Scientific Study of Jewry: Sources, Approaches, Debates, Institute of Contemporary Jewry. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem/Oxford University Press, Vol. XXV11 2014 pp.160-177, p.172.</

Any one should feel free to look through that article and, eliding the problematical (WP:OR?) 'enlarged' stuff, review it according to contemporary reearch results. I might add that Tolts doubts the Israeli statistics (p.167)Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Material from deleted article Jews and Communism

Just a heads-up that IP 184.101.78.153 is trying to add into History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Jews_in_the_revolutionary_movement some of the material deleted as part of Jews and Communism (diff).

See also

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

and Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia.

Same user has deleted content about Russian anti-semitism from Antisemitism in the Russian Empire (diff).

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra on "skeptic editors"

He's not not happy about his Wikipedia article. This may attract more attention to Deepak Chopra so wise eyes, as always, are welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A response can be found here [38] Goblin Face (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I too saw that HuffPost article making the rounds. I've added the article to my watch list. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, he's funding a group to make the article more "objective" (as his followers define it). "This team of researchers and historians has now formed the 'Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository.' The Chopra Foundation along with a few others are going to be helping them build and expand this database." --Orange Mike | Talk 02:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Marilyn Schlitz

In his latest comment, Targ [39] has mentioned someone called Marilyn Schlitz. I have never heard of her before. I had a look and I was surprised she has a Wikipedia article. Appears to be another fringe parapsychologist but she really is not that notable. I can't find any reliable sources. I believe this should be an afd. Any thoughts? Goblin Face (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes - AfD it. It's been notability-tagged for 2 years and the sources still don't meet WP:BASIC IMO. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have opted to AfD. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• FYI

   – See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Schlitz. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Useful template

A specific template to tag Unreliable fringe sources was deleted without a valid explanation. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

High strangeness

Phrase used once by J. Allen Hynek at a UFO symposium, does it deserve an entire article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, if it has become used in the appropriate community as a term of definition of events. There are some terms I know of, often theological, because that's the field I have been dealing with recently, where terms on would not think of as calling for such are given separate substantial articles in multiple reference sources to describe them. This however seems to be a case where a term whose specific notability does not seem to be demonstrated by the available references, and on that basis may well qualify for consideration for deletion or merging. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I redirected. Some of that material could be added, perhaps, but it seems like it probably doesn't belong here. It is not a useful term as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted outright. I'm not seeing it used primarily in a UFO context; it's used for that, but it's used for Forteana in general, there was a specific computer game by that name, maybe a song, and it's used just in the sense of, well, anything that's supposedly highly strange. Mangoe (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

UFO incident AfDs

Of possible interest:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chengdu UFO incident
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopeh Incident

jps (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Stargate Project

Mass material being added by a user who has become friendly with Russell Targ to this article, but unfortunately most of it is being sourced to paranormal fringe book by a remote viewer Paul Smith (2005). Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate: America's Psychic Espionage Program - and page numbers are not even given. Paul Smith is a psychic remote viewer and is the owner of a remote viewing company but does not appear to be that notable [40]. I am not opposing that this source cannot be used at all it can but not undue weight, but please see the latest section at the bottom of the article which was added entitled "methodology". There is some extreme fringe claims here all sourced to only Paul's book without any page numbers. I could not find any reliable sources for most of this information either. Lot's of other fringe material has been inserted into the article which seems impossible to verify with reliable sources. Perhaps someone who is well researched in this subject can take a look. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland

RfC: Should article be trimmed down?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Preposterous levels of detail.

Champ (cryptozoology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I encourage those active at this page to read through this and try to identify which text is actually in line with our policies and which is not. I would wager the majority of the text ought to be removed for some or other violation.

jps (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

New essay: WP:Scepticism is mainstream

I have written a new essay at WP:Scepticism is mainstream covering why scepticism is important in the philosophical and sociological ways that academia works.

Please cite this essay as part of explanations to support WP:FRINGE.

If anyone has any questions comments or editing suggestions, let me know. There are other similar topics that I may also write essays on when I get round to it, so I don't want the essay wandering off topic too much if that topic can be covered elsewhere.

This is partly inspired by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk · contribs)'s magnificently succinct WP:MAINSTREAM. But this covers primarily what MAINSTREAM means, rather than as a general point.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Inexplicable

Can anyone explain what's going on with this article? :) Goblin Face (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion as non-notable. 123chess456 (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You might also want to look at Exception paradox which looks like unreferenced pseudophilosophy to me. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The latter is cited in a series of three books by one author who does seem to have creds (at least one of the books was published by U Pitt Press) but it seems to be a name which never caught on. I'm going to try the relevant projects but I'm thinking that deletion might be in order. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

We could merge Exception paradox into Liar_paradox#Explanation_of_the_paradox_and_variants maybe? --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fallout from deletion of Category:Pseudoscientists

Given the conversion into Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, we now have a probably abortive proliferation of subcategories which are now the subject of a deletion discussion. In my opinion, the decision to restrict the new category was ill-advised, because it cut loose anyone who wasn't already in one of the extant subcats. I don't see these new subcats as a solution that's going to survive review, because they create the same problem as existed before, only a level down the tree. In the spirit of the rename, I would suggest something like Category:Advocates of fringe physics, and so forth.

But the other problem is that a lot of articles got cut loose and now have no categorization under fringe advocacy at all. Ideas about solving these problems? Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer again

Discussion of Fetzer as WP:FRINGE

James H. Fetzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Since these accusations all concern my editing, I place this here so people can see for themselves my allegedly abominable editing. When I first found the "Fetzer" article in October 2013, it was as these accusers declare I made the article—all but solely a board to publicize Fetzer's conspiracy claims in primary sources without any criticism—but I was the one who began to curtail the airing of his views via primary sources, and instead placing long quotes into notes, and adding secondary sources to place Fetzer in cultural context [my first edit of the Fetzer article]. And one can see where, at last, I took the article yesterday [seen here]. [Later note: And if you can bear to read only brief yet categorical and severe accusations, but cannot bear to read a cogent review and rebuttal, then why feign that you sincerely care about the Fetzer article?]. — Occurring (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC) It's a BLP. Article gives much space to explaining subject's various conspiracy theories and fringe views in detail. Seems odd to me that section explaining Reception of these views is missing. Talk page loaded with walls of philosophical rhetoric arguing for only the gentlest of criticism. Eyes and opinions needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC) That accusation is flatly false. I added to the article nearly all of the criticism, including harsh criticism. I think that the greater problem is shown to be that I also added, in keeping with WP:UNDUE, significant minority viewpoints that offer some support. There were no problems until I added that, and you show no concern when someone else edits while violating WP:TE to remove all of the support, but leave all of the harsh criticism that I added [relevant talkpage section]. Such biased editing even violates the very first sentence of WP:FRINGE: Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. Occurring (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Even the title of this section "James H. Fetzer again" is absurd. In the only other time with me [alert on my talkpage], it was LuckyLouie's complaint that I opposed the lead saying that Fetzer is a "leading conspiracy theorist". Yet I had to point out that I myself was the one who called him a "leading conspiracy theorist" in the lead [difference]. I had opposed LuckyLouie's insistence to delete from the lead that Fetzer has been a leading "investigator" of alleged government conspiracies [difference]. [Later note: The previous hyperlink was a poor example, since it was amid the editing process among two other editors; the diff to show LuckyLouie's edit to make the article say "proponent" of government conspiracies is here.] LuckyLouie argued that Fetzer could not have not been an investigator of alleged government conspiracies since Fetzer was a "proponent" of government conspiracies; I pointed out that that is formally saying that Fetzer wants more government conspiracies, an accusation that cannot remain in the lead [talkpage section here]. Fetzer is a leading conspiracy theorist and thereby—unless there is something really duplicitous behind the scenes—he is an opponent of government conspiracies, and investigates ones that he suspects. Occurring (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC) The closing allegation is absurd, alleging, "Talk page loaded with walls of philosophical rhetoric arguing for only the gentlest of criticism". My very first long post on a Fetzer talkpage was my only great "wall"—my only talkpage post so long as nearly unendurable by anyone but a talkpage devotee—and it was to keep criticism in the Fetzer article [talkpage section]. That talkpage section began when someone—who later became my most ardent opponent on the talkage—reverted all of my edits by solely alleging conflict of interest via the sole evidence that I had recently used two different IP addresses. I reverted the reversion and briefly explained on the talkpage the absurdity of that reasoning. Then someone posted in that same talkpage section to cast support for my edits. But soon I added the article's two most authoritative, reliable, secondary sources: ABC-CLIO indicating the Fetzer lost mainstream credibility; Palgrave Macmillan posing Fetzer as antisemitic via comments similar to David Duke's. Then the supporter of my edits began persistently, cunningly editing away the criticism. Fed up, I posted in that same talkpage section a great "wall" of "philosophical rhetoric"—actually, of critical analysis—exposing the sly, subtle machinations of argumentation and editing to remove criticism of Fetzer and then even make the article say the very opposite of what the Palgrave Macmillan citation said. But, you see, I am the sole editor who sincerely tries to keep a neutral point of view and who made the article look respectable. So the editors who blindly oppose Fetzer scapegoat me for whatever the article's alleged faults: actually just that it no longer resembles a conspiracy theorists' fanzine incidentally making Fetzer appear respected by only the crazy. Occurring (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC) A quick glance found this pov statement:"Anti-Defamation League has criticized Fetzer for allegedly focusing on "American government officials of Jewish background".[58] Fetzer found such allegations of antisemitism to be handy ploys to neutralize 9/11 dissent". Found? That's having Wikipedia say he's right. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC) For your allegation to be coherent, you are suggesting that Fetzer is God. That is all you yourself found? You're griping over one word? The absurdity of this is that I already on my own fixed the sentence to use the the term rebuked instead [seen here]. If I am the one who first used the word found, please forgive me. I usually read scholarly sources, where we do not confuse opinions for gospel. Meanwhile, I am not fighting reasonable criticism, but incorporating it into the article. Until I can please you all, I am not God dominating the article. [Later note: Actually, even "God" displeases many people.] Occurring (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC) I apologize at least partly: I did not change found to rebuked; Paul B changed found to asserted; I changed asserted to rebuked [difference]. Yet here I show the absurdity of this situation. Fetzer's opponents at the Fetzer article had taken me down, while LuckyLouie dragged me here, in late October 2013, whereupon I left the article saying, "Fetzer has complained that alleging anti-Semitism is a handy ploy to neutralize 9/11 dissent, rather" [here]. I returned on 12 March 2014 to revise the lead, and then revised the antisemitic section where, I admit, I used found instead of complained in a largescale rewording to make the criticism, too, more trenchant [difference]. Yet Csp0316 reverted some of my edit, restored the sentence with complained, somehow also kept the sentence with found, and in the edit note directed me to the talkpage [difference]. Already underway, the section titled "Problems_with_anti-semitism_paragraph" alleged that the antisemitic section, whose most authoritative secondary source was the one that I added via Palgrave Macmillan and was critical, was biased against Fetzer. On 14 March 2014, on the talkpage, I sought to address all concerns, and presented for criticism my proposed redo of the whole antisemitic section. Awaiting responses, I found none respond. So on March 16, I edited while deleting the redundant sentence and stated, "Fetzer has asserted that antisemitism 'has been used as a political club to attack research on 9/11 whenever consideration has been given to the possibility of Israeli involvement in the crime' " [here]. But LuckyLouie—who now dragged me to the Fringe noticeboard again—wholly reverted my edit while in the edit note wholly declaring, "Silence doesn't mean consent. Reads like a whitewash" [here]. (Thus, LuckyLouie kept me from replacing found with asserted.) After that, I avoided editing that section, how Paul B found in it found, which Dougweller found upon scanning the article as seemingly the sole problem via WP:POV: "Found? That's having Wikipedia say he's right". Will someone have the decency to protect me from this inane abuse not by Dougweller, but by Fetzer opponents? Dougweller, I apologize for responding sharply. Yet if you care enough to examine what is occurring, you can understand that, at least. Occurring (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC) The article is largely written in broken English by one author and strives to paint Fetzer's theories as credible. For example, when someone sued Fetzer for defamation, his attorneys argued that Fetzer's remarks were not dissimilar from those put forth by other conspiracy theorists. This is used in the Wellstone section to bolster his conspiracy theory about Paul Wellstone's death as a "legitimate controversy". I wish I time to go through it, may be a case for WP:BLOWITUP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Broken English? We earlier had a dispute based on your insistence to say that Fetzer is a "proponent" of government conspiracies [here]. When I pointed out that you were saying that he wants more government conspiracies, your only defense was that I should have known you didn't mean to say that. Then you alleged that I did not know the meaning of the word incriminate, since Fetzer had not proved guilt. Then I quoted the dictionary to show that it merely means to pose to appear guilty [here]. Now you allege, "For example, when someone sued Fetzer for defamation, his attorneys argued that Fetzer's remarks were not dissimilar from those put forth by other conspiracy theorists. This is used in the Wellstone section to bolster his conspiracy theory about Paul Wellstone's death as a 'legitimate controversy' ". Yet that is flatly false. I never said that. In the "Senator Wellstone" section, I wrote, "To publicly combat Fetzer's claims, a former prosecutor, Republican, formed a chat room, where his own lost privilege to practice law and past charges of sexual harassment was [were] aired by Fetzer, sued for defamation in Bieter v Fetzer.[9] An appeals court found Fetzer's statements legitimately relevant to the conspiracy debate, a genuine controversy [9]" [here]. My citation #9 there includes a direct quotation of a secondary source. Your allegation is paranoid delusion or severe fabrication. You mixed my statement with one in a wholly different article section, "Antisemitic controversy", where I stated, "Writing on the culture of conspiracy theorists, Jovan Byford took Fetzer's comments made even during 9/11's early aftermath to have been less crude and overtly racist than but "not dissimilar" to those made by David Duke, the Neo-Nazi activist.[12] Suggested [Suggesting] that Jews in US government bore dual loyalty, Fetzer had effectively rehashed olden antisemitism, Byford concluded[12]" [here]. Occurring (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC) The current "owner" of the article is doing a pretty good job of minimising its effectiveness as promotional page for Feltzer by making it completely unreadable. Paul B (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Would you substantiate your allegation by showing actual violations of Wikipedia guidelines? I can allege that you and your ideological allies are staking ownership of the article. Occurring (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC) My allegation is that you can't write. That's not covered by a specific guideline. It's a matter of legibility, clarity and coherence. Paul B (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Actually, it is part of Wikipedia guidelines. But the paradox here is how I can be so guilty of being unable to write clearly and coherently and yet painting a picture that allegedly is so biased as to clearly and coherently make Fetzer appear correct and without any criticism of his views. Explain that, please. How can people read that so clearly if I cannot write? Occurring (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Of course good writing is part of Wikipedia's requirements. My point is that incoherence in generalised way is not covered by a specific guideline. And yes, it is often possible to penetrate the verbiage and non sequiturs to identify a POV. My point was that the article does not serve its purpose. Paul B (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying just how I respond to your absurd allegations. Occurring (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Rather than blowing it up, I will try to find time soon to muck out the primary-sourced stuff. I think I've got talk-page consensus to remove Fetzer's primary material from the non-WP:RS Veterans Today, Russia Today, and Press TV. If I don't get to it, I could see blowing up just the "conspiracy theory" section and leaving the rest, because that's where nearly all the problems are, including many examples of fringe-WP:POV language. Meanwhile, I have restored the "fringe theories" tag the page's "owner" has -- imagine that! -- deleted. Fleenier (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC) What I find remarkable is that I added nearly none of the primary sources. As I found it, the article was merely a patchwork airing Fetzer's conspiracy claims without critical assessment and reception, and I am the one who began to add reliable secondary sources and exhibit the reception [difference]. As to your allegations of nonreliable sources, among the most unreliable sources is your personal opinion. Whether you like it or not, PressTV is a reliable source to show what Fetzer said on Press TV. Occurring (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Also, to begin with, when I deleted the tag, my edit explained that I had addressed the concern raised by the tag, while I also explained your violations of Wikipedia guidelines as if you and your ideological allies own the article. My edit note fully stated, "Reversion violated WP:UNDUE (large deletion of major & significant minority viewpoints in reliable sources), WP:TE (deleting support but keeping criticism), even violated WP:FRINGE (read its 1st sentence). My edits now address all concerns" [difference]. And on the talkpage, I had already created a section to explain the problem with your editing, but you fully responded, "No, 9/11 conspiracies are not a 'major viewpoint' in the WP sense. They are WP:FRINGE"; I then in opening explained, "Your assertion is confused, perhaps unwitting bias despite your perhaps editing in good faith. This article is not the place to battle solely major versus fringe viewpoints on '9/11 conspiracies'. The topic in the §'Conspiracy claims' is Fetzer's major and related public stances and activities concerning his own conspiracy claims resulting in his public influence and its reception from all major viewpoints and significant minority viewpoints published in reliable sources. To warrant large deletion of sourced material, cite reliable sources more authoritative and overwhelming. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy" [relevant talkpage section]. Occurring (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC) The editor, user:Occurring seems to be a general problem. In addition to his bombastic style of "discussion" on the talk page, which is more announcement than useful engagement, he is adding barely literate semi-gibberish content to many articles on philosophical subjects. He is turning many perfectly serviceable articles into unreadable junk with edits like these [41]. Many of his edits have fake "citations", that are, in fact, just more of his own utterances [42]. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Yet the citations that you show are, on the contrary, directly quoted from the sources. Your accusation is sheer paranoid delusion, and, since you are contradicting the most reliable sources on the topics, grandiose delusion. Occurring (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC) That is quite remarkable that you seem to not notice that when I found the "Instrumentalism" article, its lead was utterly false, stating the very opposite of what Instrumentalism is, and that most of the article content was not even on the correct topic. And as to the Fetzer article's talkpage, I am the only one even using to discuss, not merely ignore or accuse. Occurring (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC) It's quite remarkable that you can write this: "Until Thomas Kuhn's 1962 thesis, the prevailing views in science were roughly two. The populist was scientific realism, usually, the belief that science has progressively unveiled truer and truer view and understanding of nature. The professional was logical empiricism, whereby a scientific theory is a logical structure whose terms all ultimately all refer to observations, while an objective process neutrally arbiters theory choice, compelling true scientists to see and accept which scientific theory is better. Physicists knew better, but, busy developing the Standard Model, were so steeped in QFT—quantum field theory—that their talk, largely metaphorical, perhaps even metaphysical, was intelligible to the public, while the mathematics, variously sloppy and steep, warded off even philosophers of physics." This is grandiose OR. Paul B (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Actually, the current version lacks comma after usually, which was a typo that I already corrected. The irony is that even with the comma, it is grammatically correct, just speaks somewhat differently. That you cannot understand it suggests that perhaps the shortcoming is not in someone's writing ability. Also, why did you not quote the current article version to make your case? Anyway, the other typo that you quote is intelligible, which ought to have been unintelligible. And, no, it is not original research. Had you checked the sources, perhaps you would have learned that that's what the sources indicate. Why are you trying to argue with someone whose main interests in life are theoretical science and philosophy of science and who is studying to become a theoretical biophysicist? Occurring (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC) As usual, your response is narcissistic posturing. The problem is OR. It's essentially just a stream of assertions. "Roughly two" is nonsensical. The division between "populist" and "professional" is unsourced and highly dubious. The distinction is, in any case, a false dichotomy.... The last sentence is simply absurd. Paul B (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC) I think you're narcissistic and bombastic, since you're contradicting mainstream physics, philosophy, and claiming that I added bogus citations, and posing yourself as the master of grammar. I did not open the accusations—you did. Who are you? What makes you the expert to know what is bogus in physics and philosophy? Occurring (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC) You allege, "The division between 'populist' and 'professional' is unsourced and highly dubious. The distinction is, in any case, a false dichotomy". Yet you yourself quoted that I said "roughly two", not exactly two. Anyone familiar with philosophy of science knows until the 1960s, logical empiricism dominated the discipline and took as its paradigmatic science fundamental physics—what they identified as the fundamental science—which by then was predominantly instrumentalist. Instrumentalism is a type of antirealism. Scientific realism is realism. It is indeed a rough dichotomy well recognized by philosophers of science [1]. Why did a popular science writer pose that "many scientists came to see common sense as an impediment to progress not only in physics but also in other fields" [2]? Will you come down from the populist cloud? Kreutzberg clarifies, "Science and the general public often have differing views on what makes a statement or a theory relevant and credible. For scientists, relevance and credibility are the result of a logical chain of arguments that are supported by experimental proof. By contrast, plausibility and general agreement play central roles in public debates. It is possible that a plausible public statement contains no truth whatsoever, whereas a scientific theory backed by a wealth of research data is not credible to a nonscientific audience. Anyone who wants to communicate science to the general public needs to be aware of this conflict and must learn how to deal with it in public debates. This involves knowing and following certain rules that are often contrary to the general beliefs of the scientific community" [3]. In the "Instrumentalism" article, I already cited on physics Toretti in Cambridge University Press, Stanford in Oxford University Press, and Kuhlmann in Scientific American. Who are you to declare my citations "fake"? 1) Alan Musgrave, "The 'miracle argument' for scientific realism", Rutherford Journal website, accessed 28 May 2014. 2) John Horgan, "In defense of common sense", New York Times, 12 Aug 2005. 3) Georg W Kreutzberg, "Scientists and the marketplace of opinions", EMBO Reports, May 2005;6(5):393–6. Occurring (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Well, you can see the WP:OWN the Fetzer article's up against. One of the hazards when you get out on the fringe is that most people who've ever even heard of Conspiracy Guy X have done so because they're already on the bwahaha bandwagon, and you get articles like the current state of this one. That Fetzer himself keeps coming back to edit it doesn't help much either. Fleenier (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Yes, you're up against someone who finds that the article is owned by Wikipedia, not by its bargain basement of democracy, which Wikipedia is not. As to what "Fetzer" is doing to the article, how in the world do you even know that that is really James H Fetzer: the fact that the Wikieditor has Fetzer in his or her Wikipedia ID? The suggestion that I have edited the Fetzer article as I have since I was "already on the bwahaha bandwagon" is sheer speculation and biased presumption that suggests that the accuser is the one fixated on conspiracy theories. As I have already stated in the archived talkpages of the Fetzer article, I did not even know that Fetzer was a conspiracy theorist until I Wikilinked to the Fetzer article, and then went to look at it—whereupon I was shocked—while I was authoring the article "DN model" and included Fetzer among the sources and citations. Until October 2013, I knew Fetzer solely as the preeminent authority on the master logical empiricist, Carl Hempel. Once I made the shocking discovery, I added nearly every reliable, secondary source and added nearly all of the criticism of Fetzer's conspiracy claims. Until I did that, it was indeed just a board of his various claims. I think your gripe is that I added also what support exists, not only criticism. Occurring (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC) @Occurring. Well, the WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff is a problem. And it starts on your own user page where you rail against User:Frizzmaz and the witchhunting mob" at WP:FTN. I don't have to tell you, that's not a good use of your user page, and it's very off-putting to others. I also think you can see there is agreement among editors that your English language writing skills, as applied to the article text, are less than ideal. There are problems with the article, particularly the Conspiracy theories section. Some of this may be due to confusing grammar. Some of it may be due to undue weight on primary sources. Forget the personal Talk page conflicts for the moment. Are you willing to work with other editors to remedy the problems at the James H. Fetzer article? When I have a free block of time, I had planned to help do the cleanup work needed. But if you're going to simply revert changes, then I'd rather not waste my time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC) The irony is that your citation to reveal what I allegedly did wrong on my userpage says, "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed". But your dragging me here to the Fringe noticeboard where you air and incite delusional, paranoid, grandiose, abusive fabrications, confabulations, and lies about my edits evidences that I actually had a very good reason to place it on my userpage. My only seeming transgression is that I failed to remove it. Indeed, I always suspected that you would drag me here again to try to rally a lynching of me with your lying about me. I affirm that you are, indeed, a leader of withchunt mob. I ought to report your abuse of the Fringe noticeboard. Occurring (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Please, stop making this a battleground, which you now even extend to my userpage. My userpage explains why I at last made a userpage: someone alleged that I was using two different IP address, reasoned that that conflict of interest, and therefore reverted all of my edits. My userpage does not even mention Frizzmaz. That identity is revealed only if one vets by clicking a hyperlink in my userpage's note #1, which verifies Frizzmaz's deed. Frizzmaz started a talkpage section to claim credit for it. My note #1 neutrally, briefly summarizes that and how I rebutted. (The hyperlink on my userpage no longer works, as the talkpage got archived [elsewhere]. That you alleged I "rail against Frizzmaz" shows the problem: you confabulate via paranoia and delusion when you read what I wrote. Thus, I characterized you—but without identifying you—as the leader of the witchhunting mob since you had dragged me to this fringe tribunal via your paranoid, delusion. It was your allegation that I had problem with the Fetzer article's lead calling him a "leading conspiracy theorist". No, I am the one who called him that in the lead, and obviously you had no problem with it. Yet you stripped me of credit for it, and then tried to use it against me here by absurdly inverting reality against me. I had opposed your deleting from the lead that Fetzer had been an investigator of alleged government conspiracies. You insisted the lead to term him a proponent of government conspiracies, your argument of how he could not be an investigator of them. I pointed out that you were saying he wanted more government conspiracies. Yet as a proponent of conspiracy theories, and an investigator of alleged government conspiracies, Fetzer is an opponent—not proponent—of government conspiracies. You had conflated conspiracy theories (types of explanations) with government conspiracies (types of crimes). Ever since, you have been on vendetta to show me illiterate. Each time, I have shown you with your foot in your mouth. Thus, apparently, via escalation of commitment, your allegations have reached absurd paranoia and delusion to scapegoat me for anything you can think to criticize about the article, despite admitting that you not quite read it. In the meantime, you go looking at my userpage, perhaps vet it by checking the notes, and then airing more lies about me here. And yet you do not think that you dragged me here so that you can recruit a witchunting mob against me? If you felt embarrassed by our earlier interaction, I apologize for leaving you to feel embarrassed. Perhaps, indeed, I could have explained it clearer and more gently. Given my personality type, INXP—half INFP but half INTP—I often cannot see how others cannot see distinctions that seem clear to me. As to my writing at Wikipedia being unclear in some places to a number of readers, I have no problem with that criticism. Yet as I once first thought that I would become an essayist, and have had my writing perennially praised as exceptionally expressive, succinct, and lucid, I know very well that I write very well, including through grammar, despite some typos. One of my college professors asked to copy one of my papers as an exemplar to show other students the ideal way to answer the essay question. It was that professor's class whereby I learned of essays by James Baldwin, my inspiration as essayist. And as it happens, I did have trouble at first reading his writing, since his style is intricate, using many commas to craft a portrait with words. Thus, I developed a similar intricate style, but certainly one grammatically correct to advanced readers. And it was my English instructor from whom I learned of The Elements of Style. Thus, I began from basics. Merely, my writing can be too advanced for many readers. As to the Feter article, I never once tried to prevent rewording of my writing. I dispute, rather, that my writing is incoherent, illegible, and aggrandizing fringe theories out of proportion to their regard by society's persons whose role it is to assess theories. Reading my writing at Wikipedia, one simply faces the startling reality that scientists, scholars, judges, politicians, and so on do not even nearly all believe what you apparently believe and want others to believe. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to promulgate your own worldview, regardless of how popular it is among laypersons. If there continues further large deletions of material cited to secondary sources—far more reliable than your mere opinion by Wikieditor mob—and especially if it deletes nearly only support of some Fetzer's views or accomplishments, but leaves all the harsh criticism that I added, I will do my best to seek formal redress, and perhaps even try to get a group of scholars to take more interest in Wikipedia. I also vigorously oppose blind deletion of criticism. Yet as to the putative atrocity that I have made the Fetzer article so bad that you cannot even read it unless it is deleted and started again from scratch, you say, "Some of it may be due to undue weight on primary sources". I am not the one who added the primary sources—so why lay that complaint at my door? If you want to delete the primary sources about his various, minor conspiracy theories, go ahead. When I found the article, it was nearly completely primary sources. I shrank them down to minimally represented: one paragraph. I think I added a grand total of one primary source: it indicates how Fetzer himself, being interviewed, says he became involved in investigating the JFK assassination [§"JFK assassination"]. I had added to the article its sole authoritative, secondary source giving a biographical review [note#7]. As I found it, the article's solee authoritative, secondary source was Bugliosi's book on JFK conspiracy theories, and quoted to praise Fetzer as "good and sincere", "the editor of the only exclusively scientific books (three) on the assassination" [note#30]. I dug into the book, exposed that Bugliosi aimed to debunk JFK conspiracy theories, and added Bugliosi's conclusion that Fetzer was wrong, and I addd Bugliosi's main argument why. Further, I added the hyperlink to Google Books so that one can vet that for oneself. If you want to take more weight off primary sources, go ahead and be my guest. For all I care, go ahead and delete them. May this record attest to your leading a witchhunting mob against me via your own paranoia and delusions and lies about me. Occurring (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Someone wake me when the filibuster is over. Fleenier (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC) My response to your post was rather brief. Did you have trouble reading that as well? Occurring (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC) You writing isn't "advanced". It's self indulgent posturing, like so much of your activity here. We aren't interested in preening. We are interested in communicating to readers clearly and accurately. You fail to achieve that goal. Paul B (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Agree Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC) So at least my writing is not advanced "self-indulgent posturing", Mr Infallible. Fallibility is a foundational principles in philosophy and science, while I readily accept that I often "fail to achieve that goal" of "communicating to readers clearly and accurately". I welcome improvement to render my writing understandable to a wide readership. You are obviously an utter novice in philosophy of science, and wholly lost in the English and mathematics of particle physics. Loftiness and obscurity are perhaps the most notorious traits of language of philosophers and physicists. Combine them both via someone studying both, and what do you expect? You are an enemy to your own avowed aim. How is that you read my post to someone else, and responded about that—about my English writing—but did not respond to my latest post to you. Is it since I exposed your fraudulent posture of expertise in philosophy of science? In the "Instrumentalism" article, since I knew very well that I was revealing truths shocking to a novice, my notes in the lead directly quoted authoritative sources. But here, you alleged that I stated a "false dichotomy". The rough dichotomy, however, is well explained by direct quotes in a note in the article's lead. Instead of following the hyperlinks to Google Books, you asserted here on the Fringe noticeboard, "Many of his edits have fake 'citations', that are, in fact, just more of his own utterances [43]". (Your first comma was ungrammatical, Mr Infallible.) Your userpage says, "By education and expertise I am a Victorianist and a specialist in art, but my main interests here are in the history of scholarly theories in religion, literature and ethnology" [version found]. When I asked why you are arguing with someone whose main interests—as one might well gather through my own userpage—are theoretical science and philosophy of science, while I clarified here that I am studying to become a theoretical biophysicist, your own response was personally attacking me. Your writing is obnoxious, how you introduced yourself to me and have uniformly written to me. You lack the decency to either even acknowledge your error or even just let it go once I showed your foot in your mouth, as perhaps only village atheists could deny. I learned that you existed when you edited the Fetzer article while your edit note wholly stated "sentence was incoherent", whereupon my edit note wholly clarified, "Incoherent is one calling a sentence 'incoherent' while posing oneself as so well understanding it as to word it clearer, not delete it. Now I correct the putative correction" [difference]. You could simply and accurately stated "improved wording" or even "unclear sentence" when, actually, you also deleted a key aspect of the sentence. And amid your paranoid, grandiose delusions while feigning expertise here on Fringe noticeboard, on the Fetzer talkpage you started a section titled "Babble", where you babbled your categorical, absolute attack as "unintelligible" one sentence in the article. Yet as a genius, you somehow interpreted it correctly, and asked if I had meant such. Why go through all of that? I had directly quoted a book explaining what happened, placed it in the citation, and hyperlinked to it on Google Books. Please, stop abusing the Fringe noticeboard, the Fetzer talkpage, and a fellow Wikieditor. I have not gone to articles that you have edited in your areas of interest, denied authoritative sources in them, and then accused you of editing fraud via fringe theories of original research. You have done to me. Occurring (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC) I'll agree with that too. Unnecessarily prolix, tediously repetitive, and comically egocentric. This is not a guy who learned much from Strunk and White. Fleenier (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC) I quite agree that my writing to LuckyLouie on this page is repetitive, a trait that pales versus the sheer and brief stupidity, falsity, and solipsism of all of your posts that I have ever seen. Despite your allegations and assertions, you have yet to make a cogent, defensible even argument, whether long or brief. So my replies to your posts are succinct, whether here or on the Fetzer talkpage. Get your fellow Fetzer opponent LuckyLouie to cease repeating and escalating paranoid, delusions and lies about me on the Fringe noticeboard, and the "filibuster" will be over. Meanwhile, for the short version, try common sense: focus on replies to your own posts. (PS: Your crude misunderstanding of The Elements of Style is expressly corrected by Strunk and White themselves in a later chapter that apparently you failed to get to.) Occurring (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Hilarious. Oh no no no, it can't be *you* who got it wrong, oh no no no. I must not have read it all, oh yeah, that must be it. My understanding of it is "crude." I'd suggest that you might want to back away from that line of argument. I don't think you'd like how that thread would inevitably work out. And in general, you might want to ask whether you're doing yourself any favor at all with your wall-o-texts, chest-pounding, and multiply pasted snippets. They don't have to be directed to me for me to recognize that your argument style is working against you, not for you. Fleenier (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC) In perhaps my sole sheer allegation or conclusion without argumentation or explanation on this page, I wholly commented, "PS: Your crude misunderstanding of The Elements of Style is expressly corrected by Strunk and White themselves in a later chapter that apparently you failed to get to". You thereupon warned, "I'd suggest that you might want to back away from that line of argument. I don't think you'd like how that thread would inevitably work out". Yet your paranoid conclusion that you project onto me—I must not have read it all, oh yeah, that must be it—was already contradicted by my actual conclusion, no argumentation offered, that merely suggested your failure to finish reading it. With added chapters, the third edition—the one I read—corrects a common misreading of their thesis advising to cut wordiness and render the reading maximally swift. Not advising one to be brief or laconic in a composition—let alone to limit number of compositions—they advise maximal efficiency, concentrating expression within any composition. They urge one to make every word tell. One of my replies to your posts revealed my interest in logical empiricism, whose founding thesis was that most of humankind's problems reduce to misunderstood language. I even announced my personality type, INXP—half INFP known for writing eloquence, and half INTP known for devastating argumentation—but you failed to heed that except to thump your chest. As to your downright crude and common reasoning and argumentation errors, I could have named the formal names in introductory social psychology and logic. If I were so egotistical, why did I not do that? You are severely self-absorbed and fixated on your own naive social heuristics via sociopolitical allegiance to allege that a respected mainstream physicist was a fringe physicist [44]. Your writing is wordy and clumsy, for instance I'd suggest that you might want to back away from that line of argument. Enlightened by Strunk and White, that becomes I suggest you retract that argument. If you seek to continue this, perhaps if you are masochistic, it could be I suggest you reroute your argument. Yet to make it logical, too, try I suggest you retract your conclusion—I made no argumentation—or try I suggest you restate your conclusion. At the initial round of allegations, seeing myself up against Goliath, an ogre with one eye, I split up rebuttals so that no Wikieditors feigning attention deficit disorder's inability to read a "wall"—a wall aimed to settle the dispute once and for all—could tacitly insist to rehash brief accusations amid mob rule for months. At LuckyLouie's allegations, I spliced my rebuttals into multiple compositions, each a historical and critical review terse yet trenchant. Lacking refutations, LuckyLouie then changed horses midstream about the nature of the problem. LuckyLouie newly alleged it to be my own userpage, and then speculated—once LuckyLouie remembered the Fetzer article—that it might be the putative abundance of primary sources. I made my only lengthy reply, then. It opens by succintly rebutting the first of LuckyLouie's most recent allegations, then reviews my own view of the big problem—never my writing being either wayward or incoherent, but LuckyLouie's confused reading, perhaps my speaking too bluntly, and LuckyLouie's injured feelings—and then closes with my correcting LuckyLouie's other most recent allegation that seemingly blames me for the primary sources. I am the one who tamed the primary sources, and scarcely care if they are deleted. To side with the fraudulent philosopher of science who mistook the writing of eminent philosophers of science for my own writing, you fully declared, "I'll agree with that too. Unnecessarily prolix, tediously repetitive, and comically egocentric. This is not a guy who learned much from Strunk and White". Atop your incomplete sentence violating Strunk and White's most basic counsel—a rigid foundation of basic grammar rules to build upon—you suggest abhorrence of Strunk and White's counsel to write boldly, never timidly. Ironically, your writing is truly prolix and comically egocentric. You actually said, "Unnecessarily prolix, tediously repetitive". Prolix means all four of those words. Enlightened by Strunk and White, you might have said, "Indeed, his writing is prolix and meandering—none enlightened by Strunk and White". Yet you read by a snowballing conflation, projection, and paranoia. My writing on this page seems prolix only if, more or less, one reads all of my compositions, but confuses them for one composition. I hazard your personality type to be ESTJ, who, as Keirsey's website finds, "like to take charge of groups and are comfortable issuing orders. They are cooperative with their own superiors, and they would like cooperation from the people working under them. Rank, they believe, has its obligations, but it also has its privileges" [45]. Your tough talk—I don't think you'd like how that thread would inevitably work out—helped by Strunk and White becomes You would dislike the outcome. Closing, you assert, "They don't have to be directed to me for me to recognize that your argument style is working against you, not for you". You think I speak to make you clowns like me? [Later note: Odd coming from INXP, my PS—my first foray into allegation/declaration without argumentation/explanation—was cheese laid on a mousetrap set for ESTJ.] Eyeing INTP, Keisey's website finds "the greatest precision in thought and speech of all the types. They tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies instantaneously, and can detect contradictions no matter when or where they were made", while they "are driven to find the most efficient means to their ends, and they will learn in any manner and degree they can. They will listen to amateurs if their ideas are useful, and will ignore the experts if theirs are not. Authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them" [46]. My argumentation silenced all that I sought to silence here, but triggered argumentum ad hominem. If able to raise the white flag, why throw worse argument after bad? In social psychology, escalation of commitment is the principle—risking getting your whole leg in your mouth instead of just pulling your foot out and letting it go—that rendered your reaction utterly predictable. May I bronze this section of the "Fringe theories noticeboard" to help protect me from you village atheists who need idols to obey in order to be civil? On INFP, Keisey's website finds, "They have a natural interest in scholarly activities and demonstrate, like the other Idealists, a remarkable facility with language. They have a gift for interpreting stories, as well as for creating them, and thus often write in lyric, poetic fashion" [47]. Occurring (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC) And who are you whereby your mere vote is important, Balaenoptera musculus? On the Fetzer article's talkpage, I clarified your fundamental misunderstanding and even contradiction of WP:FRINGE. The entirety of a banner atop WP:FRINGE: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. Are Fetzer's views on alleged government conspiracies a mainstream idea. Or are they are minority viewpoint itself? Before LuckyLouie opened this topic on the Fringe noticeboard, I had started on the Fetzer article's talkpage a new section specifically addressing LuckyLouie's concern, but LuckyLouie [still has not responded in it]. So why did LuckyLouie instead begin a topic on it here on the Fringe noticeboard while confabulating paranoid delusions and outright lies about my editing of the article and activities on the talkpage? Was it to be lucky in inciting a lynch mob of village atheists? Yet LuckyLouie deigned to respond in a different talkpage section when someone proposed deleting most of the Fetzer article. In that section, I posed a curious finding and speculation: The irony of this was that LuckyLouie was the one who called for the elaboration and elucidation of the reception to Fetzer's claims by adding the fringe tag and wholly stating, "Odd that there's no 'reception' or "criticism' for the many fringe theories presented here. Per WP:FRINGE, we need to present how the fringe view differs from mainstream view" [difference]. When the article really was just a board for Fetzer's conspiracy claims made in primary sources, none of this criticism was being aired [difference before/after my very first edit at this Fetzer article]. Why does all of this criticism come only once I show—as LuckyLouie urged—the reception of Fetzer's "many fringe theories"? (I already explained that there are not even "many fringe theories presented here" [here]) Could it be that, actually, I have made Fetzer merely appear not wholly crazy?

A quick word count

Just a quick note. At this point the section is 47K words long; nearly seven of eight of those words come from just one poster. It's an ineffective strategy. More is not better. As the Fetzer article has just been given a well-deserved trimming addressing the WP:FRINGE problem, there is no need to continue this discussion. Fleenier (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And yet my strategy was effective to make you raise the white flag and make you glad to make the discussion vanish. I need to bronze this empty section, rather. Occurring (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Every time I flush the toilet, there's stuff in it I'm glad vanishes. But if you'd rather bronze it, be my guest. Done here. Fleenier (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"and yet my strategy was effective to make you raise the white flag". A disgusting remark, but unsurprising. No-one wants to wade through acres of verbal dreck which do nothing to advance anything but distaste for their author. Your "strategy" worked only to the extent that it produced what is called a chilling effect, as it became evident that any meaningful discussion was going to be buried under tons of narcissistic prose. Congratulations. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Menas Kafatos

Mass content being added by a new user. Some of it looks ok but some of the references look fringe. Any thoughts about what to do on this one? Goblin Face (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Linda and Terry Jamison

This article about allegedly psychic twins is very sad reading and a monument to bad sourcing. Highly promotional tone and lots of "predictions" cited to what someone heard on Coast to Coast or some obscure website, or some obscure podcast, or their own autobiography. Also lots of synthesis connecting their alleged predictions to news reports that supposedly confirm their psychic powers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Something fishy here, if you look on Google books, absolutely no books discuss these psychics, none at all? Apart from their own book. The only other source that comes up is about 20 issues of "Weekly World News" which was a "largely fictional news tabloid" that was well known for hoaxes and exaggerated claims. Certainly not a reliable source for anything. The article should be deleted. I can't find any reliable sources at all. An internet search for these psychics only reveals facebook pages, blogs and paranormal forums or podcasts. There is nothing to establish notability. Goblin Face (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This was the closest I found to a 3rd party source about the twins. Going to do more looking, as I predict some freak outs if it's brought to AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Psychic Twins' Say Their Predictions Include Elections, 9/11 Attacks, June 28, 2011, ABC News, Nightline
• "How could they have known?" Belfast Telegraph, March 28, 2012
• "Your Life: SPIRIT & FATE: DOUBLE Vision; WHY THE STARS - AND THE CIA - SHOULD HEED PSYCHIC TWINS LINDA AND TERRY JAMISON", The Mirror, London, November 4, 2005
• "Whoopi Goldberg was German nun in previous life say psychic twins." Hindustan Times, New Delhi, July 11, 2011
• Good Housekeeping; November 1, 2000, a brief mention of them getting their hair done at a Beverly Hills hairdresser.

Here's what I found. Not the most serious coverage in the world. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• As mentioned AfD may provoke major protestations. In my mind it needs a WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Has anybody let the main contributors know this article is under discussion? - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't know who major contributors are, but notified one possible here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me that this article is under discussion. I agree that it really needs to be cleaned up big time, but not deleted. They ARE established as psychic/performers and have appeared on Good Morning America, Saturday Night live , Tyra Banks and a few other documentaries. They also published two books. Let me know going forward what you will do to improve the article. Thisandthem (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

[[48]] Category "Pseudoscientist" removed by higher powers

... and editors are gaily running around deleting the category from the BLP's of pseudoscientists, and not adding the alternative category "Advocate of Pseudoscience". I suspect that I have missed something in the "ruling" because alcohol, but it ain't right - what can we do? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to discuss this at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_22#Pseudoscientific_fooers. By the close at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_1#Category:Pseudoscientists, the category:Pseudoscientists is supposed to be removed from all articles and the articles are supposed to be placed in appropriate sub-categories of category:Advocates of pseudoscience. The problem is that no one is making those appropriate sub-categories, and so the articles are being removed from the categorization scheme entirely, or they are being added to inadequate sub-categories which will eventually have to removed from the categorization scheme. The result is that the original category is just being fully deleted, with no replacement. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I want to do something about this, and when sober, will investigate how to make these appropriate sub categoires for all these ex pseudoscientists to go into. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There was a long, involved discussion about this in at CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists). A notice was posted on this very board all about the discussion. A three admin panel came to the decision posted there. And you can't put any individuals into Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, that is a container category which means that it holds subcategories (groups) only, not articles (individuals). So, if you put this category on the page of individuals previously called Pseudoscientists, it would be removed. As Atethnekos mentions, alternative categorization is being discussed right now. Better to get some new categories that editors can come to agreement on than edit war or have a lot of random categories created that don't represent language that is actually used to describe these individuals.

By the way, many of those people categorized as Pseudoscientists are already in categories like Category:Pseudohistorians so they are, through that category, filed under Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. I am one of the editors (but not the only one) who removed the category Pseudoscientist from articles before the category was deleted and if you look at my Contributions, you can see some of the individuals who were in that category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a terrible way to do it: A sensible way would have been either to leave the category in place during the recategorization, or keep a list of pages to be categorized. Now? Information has been lost that will have to be ereconstructed. Please behave in a more sensible manner in future. I agree recategorization is reasonable, but there was no reason whatsoever to do it in a manner that basically deleted the work needed to find pages tat should be categorized into the new tree. Hell, they could have been auto-moved into the container category temporarily with a deadline to recategorize. That the most destructive abnd stupid option - to blow the category up and start over - was taken shows a severe lack of judgement, for which the admins should be ashamed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The admin decision was fine, the implementation was lacking. Note the decision said, "All article subjects currently in Category:Pseudoscientists must be recategorized to remove this category and replace it with a subcategory or subcategories specifying the field or fields of pseudoscience" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pseudoscientists category was deleted and it would have just disappeared from articles it appeared on. By manually removing the category off of those articles, I thought I would preserve a record of those articles in my Contributions. I agree that it wasn't the most smooth transition. For example, I know other editors removed the category from articles but I don't know who those editors are or which articles were affected. But there were 47 individual articles I removed it from and they can all be found in my contributions.

These articles will be recategorized (if they don't fall under a subcategory in Category:Advocates of pseudoscience already) and I encourage interested editors to weigh in on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 22#Pseudoscientific fooers discussion for what those categories might be called because right now, there is no agreement. Once the categories are decided, articles will be recategorized. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It is good to note that Liz' contribs list will to a certain extent preserve the information and provide a tool to use once a categorization scheme is devised. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I've put this up for deletion review in order to reassess some aspects of the renaming. Mangoe (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

5:2 diet

RfC: Is 5:2 a 'fad diet'? Or just a 'diet'?

--Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is whatever a reliable source says it is. It looks like a fad to me but I'm not reliable. Bhny (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with "fad diet" is that it has quite a few meanings. Maybe a diet that enjoys temporary popularity, or maybe one which emphasizes only a certain foodstuff. It seemed fine to me to say the diet had been called a "fad diet" rather than asserting it (and this is well-sourced). But it's not worth the immense drama this question seems to have caused! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Technically, are there any named diets that aren't, in some way or other, fad diets? It's not like there's any that have been consistently popular for decades. As such, I wouldn't consider the word useful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There are medically recommended diets and stupid fad diets, they are different things- [[49]] Bhny (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Bhny, the issue (IIUC - and I haven't personally checked the sources) is that some but not all WP:RS call it a 'fad diet', so inclusion (or not) in the first sentence is a judgement of WP:WEIGHT. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a defined adjective in medical dictionaries [[50]] that basically means not medically recommended. If the sources say it is a not medically recommended (i.e. fad) then we should make this clear in the first paragraph. There's strict policies on medical issues like diet. Bhny (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you point to the "strict policy" that backs this up please? I've had a look through the MoS to see something that backs it up, but can't find anything. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

They might be thinking of WP:MEDRS. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Teslascope Comment

I've Teslascope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. Egregious WP:SYNTH combined with excessive quote-mining leads to a misleading article which seems to serve no purpose other than to mythologise it's purported inventor. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Chiles-Whitted UFO encounter

Chiles-Whitted UFO encounter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A nice little unreferenced piece of work. Is this a WP:COPYVIO perhaps of Jerome Clark?

jps (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I AFD'd this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Allagash Abductions

Allagash Abductions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since 2008, this article has been tagged for problems. Can someone with lots of time find some sources, edit the article, remove th original research, etc?

jps (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Laredo, Texas UFO crash

Laredo, Texas UFO crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Credulity reigns supreme in the write-up of this UFO crash. I feel like scare quotes should be in the title, in spite of WP:MOS. Help cleaning up this article would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laredo, Texas UFO crash - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Chinese herbology

This change was too wordy IMHO. See Talk:Chinese herbology#Simpler wording was better. QuackGuru (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Work with User:Gandydancer, QG, and find a compromise. There's already been long-standing concerns of ownership with pages you edit. Wikipedia is here to assert facts and not opinions. DVMt (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture is used to cure ailments

"Acupuncture needles are a medical instrument used to cure ailments by the method of withdrawing blood and stimulating certain points on humans and animals by inserting them on specific pressure points of the body." See Traditional Korean medicine#Acupuncture. That is news to me that acupuncture is used to cure ailments. I think that article requires some updating. QuackGuru (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed the word 'cure' is not supported by evidence. Tread carefully. I recommend paraphrasing the definition contained here [51]. The WHO is reliable and credible, the most mainstream international organization on health care. DVMt (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ynsa

"Yamamoto New Scalp Acupuncture". Please have a look at this, WP:FTN folks. TIA. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've edited it a bit and it needs more work. Note that one of the sources is a BMJ published journal. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Smith Wigglesworth

Wigglesworth was a Pentecostal faith healer, an ex-plumber who believed he could cure cancer. His supporters made claims that he made feet grow on someone who had none, and that people were raised from the dead by his preaching. Unfortunately, all the books on the subject are of the credulous type, with not the slightest appearance of critical analysis. I have tried to inject some degree of skepticism and balance in the article, but with difficulty. One editor reverted the point that Wigglesworth had no medical training (he claimed cancer was caused by 'demons'). Fresh eyes would be useful here. --Rbreen (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits like this [52] may be objected to on the grounds of WP:CLAIM. In cases like this, I suspect it's just best to leave the stories as stories. If people want to believe that someone with no feet grew new feet, but this amazing event was never recorded in medical literature, then there's not much we can do other than note that it's just an anecdote. The sheer absurdity of the claim is itself a red flag for any halfway-sensible reader. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

I notice some WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE violations since the push that started two weeks ago; compare with this version. An easy starting place is to restore the New Republic source and accompanying text per WP:PSCI. (I would rather not make that change since the New Republic links to something I wrote.)

The talk page is a bit of a funny farm mess (search for "Hitler"), being dominated by a paid Chopra shill advocate, an editor who was twice topic-banned from Transcendental Meditation, and a sockpuppeteer who wrote an off-wiki declaration of war calling Wikipedia editors "scoundrels" and "pisspoor bastards". vzaak 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Do you really want to go into the attacks on that page, and this is a neutral comment on that discussion? I tried to deal with your issues with good faith, Vzaak. Too bad. I'm posting also on BLP /NB. Input is always welcome(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

Hi Vzaak. Thanks for your hard work on that article. It is difficult going often. The lede, the part of the article I have been most concerned with up to this point, seems fine to me. Do you have any problems with it? Which other section do you think is most problematic? I'm not sure where the New Republic piece is supposed to go in the article and could not find discussion of it on the talkpage. Maybe we should start a section to discuss that?

A bit of advice: try to avoid the personality clashes and implied invectives if possible (WP:NPA is still considered sacrosanct here). It will only serve as fodder for future nasty arbitration cases. I know why you are doing this and I fall victim to it too but, trust me, it's better to simply be oblique rather than all WP:MASTADONy. I write this from experience.

jps (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jps. I think I suggested the same. Start a section to discuss the concerns you have source by source. Focus on the specific content concerns rather than general, overarching issues allows all editors to really understand, and to consciously work towards agreement. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

There is too many people editing this article right now and too much traffic on it. In 4 months there won't be, so I suggest looking at in then. I already listed about 5 sources (check the archive of the talk-page) which describe Chopra's views as pseudoscience or quackery, but for some reason nobody took interest in adding these references in, apparently they were too "critical". It's not possible to insert criticisms into the article right now due to various editors. They seem to be toning down various criticisms etc. I would offer to improve this article but I am quitting Wikipedia next month, I have other articles to work on until then, so good luck with it. Goblin Face (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not intend to be unduly negative; I was just trying to describe the situation. By "funny farm" I simply meant "a mess", which is what others have observed on that talk page. The word "shill" has disrespectful connotations, so I have changed it to "advocate". It is not a personal attack to mention that someone who was previously topic-banned for tendentious editing on TM articles is now active on an article related to TM. It is also not a personal attack to mention another editor's personal attacks. vzaak 18:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra: RfC: Move criticism up lede?

Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC: Move criticism up lede?

Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion about having a discussion about things we all care about

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To avoid the more unpleasant aspects of how discussions about this page have gone in the past, I ask you to provide your limited input: here.

jps (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

German casualties in World War II

Hi, I recently corrected and improved some information on the Germany page about the number of people killed during World War II and the Holocaust. Specifically, I included actual numbers and not just "millions". I also added the lower estimates given by the West German Government to the article although the article cited a German accademic (Rüdiger Overmans) whose page only had one reference on it and his claim to notability seems to be coming up with this high estimate of German soldiers killed during the war. Does including his statistics in the text sound like it's what Wikipedia would called a fringe theory and if so, what should I do? Thanks!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Are his estimates rejected explicitly by others? Just because someone is on one tail or another of a distribution of estimates does not necessarily make them fringe. Check to see whether he is cited critically or as simply a respected example of a high estimate.

Fringe often means generally ignored by those in the know. If he is not ignored but instead only considered to be inaccurate, then he is not as fringe as many of the ideas considered by this board, though he may still qualify for more careful editorial work than if he was more in line with the median estimates.

jps (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Another UFO sighting

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonsall UFO.

Sigh. This walled garden needs some more weeders.

jps (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Original Research Goldmine

UFO sightings in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Cleaning up would be a welcome undertaking.

jps (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why bother? I can't see any indication that the subject itself meets independent notability guidelines, and there doesn't seem to be much in it that is even specifically independently referenced at all. I know that there are various books like "Weird Missouri" (the state I live in, and I'm not even included in the book, dammit), and books of that type could, presumably, establish notability for Alleged paranormal phenomena in Missouri or similar articles, but I don't see anything here which would do the same thing. Other lists or index articles, like maybe "Paranormal phenomena of the 12th century," or "List of global UFO sightings," might be notable, but there's nothing to indicate that this article individually meets notability, and, honestly, the lack of references raises questions about a lot of the items listed. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay then!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in China.

jps (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Good idea; a more direct solution. bobrayner (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we get some more input here, please? jps (talk) 00

38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

David Wilcock (Cayce reborn)

This is the guy who thinks he's he may be the reincarnation of Cayce. I reverted some publicity links earlier today, mainly about a 'Hollywood movie' which seems to be just a dream right now. But after that I caught up with some posts on my talk page and one directed me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Molinaro which points out that being a best-selling author, which he is, doesn't confer notability. The only RS I've found so far that actually discusses him in any depth is a source,[53] and that is just a short paragraph. Can anyone find more or want to work on the article? Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Article is a mess as there's little to no reliable sources. Article should be put up for afd. Goblin Face (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've BLP-deleted everything uncited. I'm not entirely comfortable with deletion given his presence on some NYT bestseller list but I probably wouldn't oppose it. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Having talked with others, we now have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wilcock. Mangoe (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Charles Lethbridge

Can someone please look at this, over 80 references added but all from the same book? Goblin Face (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have the cited Hutton book; if I can find it there may be references in it that may prove helpful. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Close encounter

Close encounter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IP keeps adding weird "Transology" stuff. Hynek's first three classifications are notable and cited to reliable enough sources. The rest of the article is a magnet for bizarre cruft from fringe sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't finish my edit summary there, but neither www.thenightsky.org or www.theblackvault.com meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. I reverted to your last edit. Location (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Another set of eyes would be helpful as I would prefer not to run up against the 3RR. Thanks! Location (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

They're IP hopping to avoid 3RR, and edit warring. [54] - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for the article to be semi-protected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Dark Complected Man

Dark Complected Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another article linked to the JFK assassination conspiracy theories. The only information that I can found about this person in reliable sources is Louie Steven Witt's testimony about sitting next to a "Negro man". Given the lack of discussion about "Dark Complected Man" or this part of Witt's testimony in secondary reliable sources, should this be redirected to Umbrella Man or put up on Afd? Is anyone else able to find reliable sources about this person? Thoughts? Location (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just not notable enough for a dedicated article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Complected Man - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion continues here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Dark_Complected_Man. jps (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

2008 Turkey UFO sightings deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Turkey UFO sightings.

I'm going to keep working my way through these slowly.

jps (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Tired Light

Licorne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tired light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne.

The old anti-semetic fringe physics promoter is baaaack.

Please go through the contributions of 96.228.244.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to see if there are any problems.

Sympathetic admins who are watching this page may wish to take note.

jps (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In lieu of breaking 3RR, I've now referred the case to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #96.228.244.95. jps (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Coyame UFO incident

Coyame UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would somebody look at this article and remove all the stuff that isn't reliably sourced? After you do that, will there be anything left?

jps (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Significantly cleaned up. Better late than never. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill

Fringe New WOrld Order pushing film. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, we are getting very inexperienced editors arguing to keep it with arguments such as "Having seen this film, knowing the content and people featured within. and knowing where it gets seen and the following and controversy it has attracted, i'd say it has definite notability." and " The question whether the film is notable enough for Wikipedia could be answered by more research. There's not doubt in my mind that Brooks is notable. The film follows."(while admitting lack of reviews). Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)