Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A substantial number of sources have described some rumors and speculation as conspiracy theories and allegations of hoax, but two editors DHeyward and Cla68 are of the opinion that these are just contrary opinions, and have replaced the "Conspiracy theories and hoax allegations" heading with "Contrary opinions" and added an opening sentence to the section. "A number of those observing and analyzing the incident have questioned or criticized the original narrative" [1] (which I believe is a good example of WP:OR). They also added scare quotes ("conspiracy theories") when describing them in the article.

There are no sources that describe these comments as "contrary opinions". Any disinterested observer would clearly see that these are indeed fringe and conspiracy theories, and we should follow the sources and call them for what they are.

Theories

The Dallas Morning News has referred to these questions and criticisms "conspiracy theories", reporting that most them "cited no evidence, contradicted each other, or clashed with known facts". Glenn Beck, who said that "for some reason Irving is important to the Islamists", and the incident was a "dog whistle". Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart, said he suspects the Obama Administration was behind the controversy, using it as political propaganda. Steve Watson from Infowars.com, said: "[a]t the very least this situation was quickly seized on by special interest groups and the White House to push their agendas, and at worst it seems it was a complete setup". Rumors that Mohamed's clock was not just a clock, but a countdown clock and theories have cast suspicion on Mohamed's family and Muslim groups supporting Mohamed since his detainment. Speculation that the incident could have been a staged hoax intended to provoke a response. Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano speculated Mohamed and his parents may have committed a "purposeful hoax" by referring to the clock as an invention. Other theories posit that Mohamed planned to get arrested to embarrass police, and speculated the incident was a plot orchestrated by Islamists. Conservative national columnist Mark Steyn referred to Mohamed’s father as "a belligerent Muslim activist". Richard Dawkins accused Mohamed of staging a hoax and speculated that Mohamed's intention may have been to get arrested. Dawkins, however, has maintained that Mohamed should not have been taken into custody. Dawkins later said that his concerns stemmed from his impression that Mohamed was claiming to have "invented" the clock, but that "it's possible he doesn't know the meaning of 'invention'". References

Sources referring to these as conspiracy theories

Selk, Avi (September 23, 2015). "Craze over teen clockmaker from Irving shifts from celebrity to conspiracy". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015. Retrieved September 24, 2015. Conspiracy theories about Ahmed Mohamed are spreading nearly as fast as the boy's celebrity. Mitchell, Jim (September 23, 2015). "You need a scorecard to follow the Ahmed conspiracy theories". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved September 24, 2015. I woke up this morning thinking Ahmed Mohamed's few days of fame had expired, and the world would move on to other issues. But after reading about the conspiracy theories now swirling social media, I have one question. What ever happened to facts? Drago, Mike (September 24, 2015). "The Ahmed Mohamed affair". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. Then, when kids are kids and adults over-react and the rest of us go bonkers, people like Van Duyne can point fingers, say people are overly sensitive and condone stupid conspiracy theories. Greenwald, Will (September 21, 2015). "Bomb, Clock, or Just a Future Career in Engineering?". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. The incident sparked a debate about racism and Islamophobia (and the inevitable conspiracy theories emerged) Briquelet, Kate (September 21, 2015). "Nerds Rage Over Ahmed Mohamed's Clock". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. It's been enough for conservative websites like Breitbart to all but fuel conspiracy theories on Mohamed's meteoric rise and his father's history as an anti-Islamophobia gadfly who twice ran for president of Sudan. Fang, Lee. "Ahmed Mohamed's Clock Was 'Half a Bomb,' Says Anti-Muslim Group With Ties to Trump, Cruz". The Intercept. Retrieved September 27, 2015. Gaffney, who was an acting assistant secretary of defense for several months in the Reagan administration, has spread a variety of Islamophobic conspiracy theories in recent years Francis, Matthew R. (September 25, 2015). "Why is Richard Dawkins such a jerk?". Slate. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. Dawkins even links to a piece at the right-wing hate-monger site Breitbart, thereby spreading a conspiracy theory the paranoid author espouses.

If these are conspiracy theories as described in reliable sources, Wikipedia should not attempt to present these any any other ways than fringe theories. I'd appreciate comments from uninvolved editors- Cwobeel (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd love to get into this but I have my hands full with the Center for Security Policy (above), at the moment. Suffice to say, WP is on LoonWatch Level 5 right now. LavaBaron (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to start taking more care with the use of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist". I've noticed that the term is clearly being used more frequently on both sides of the political spectrum — see the previous FTN discussion — due to the negative connotation it implies. "Hoax allegations" seems appropriate for the section title. In-text attribution for who believes others are pushing a "conspiracy theory" is warranted. - Location (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. "Hoax allegations" may work to some extent, but there are some theories that are not about a hoax. But most definitively better than "Contrary views". - Cwobeel (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory describes exactly that, a theory about an alleged conspiracy (that is, a group of people working in secret to accomplish some shadowy goal). The term has picked up a negative connotation due to all the bonkers groups out there getting media attention every time they run their mouths (birthers, truthers, etc.). But it's still an accurate label, especially since people like Dawkins think the motive here was to neuter criticism of Muslims in order to allow extremism to flourish. It's not just that they think Mohamed pulled a prank, but that they think he did it for some ulterior and nefarious motive: getting access to the president, loosening security restrictions in schools, etc. etc. clpo13_(talk) 05:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is that Breitbart, WashingtonPost, Foxnews, Dawkins and Bill Maher all got together to make something up. Please. There are many that question motives. --DHeyward (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Bill Maher is not included in that section, neither is WaPo (pleas take some time to read the material and the sources above). So why are you not addressing the issue at hand? These are indeed fringe theories and should be described as such. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This source discusses the problem the best -- additional secondary sources listed above confirm the same:
  • Selk, Avi (September 23, 2015). "Craze over teen clockmaker from Irving shifts from celebrity to conspiracy". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015. Retrieved September 24, 2015. Conspiracy theories about Ahmed Mohamed are spreading nearly as fast as the boy's celebrity.
• The solution is to prune the article of sources that fail WP:RS and espouse WP:FRINGE views. If such fringe views are indeed identified as "conspiracy theores" by multiple secondary sources that meet WP:RS, then they should be identified as such, in the article. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Anything that doesn't tow the PC line is fringe. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Bit of a WP:REDFLAG comment there if I've ever heard one. LOL. — Cirt (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Toe. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You spell 'toe', I say toe-mah-toe (in other words, who the frick cares that she spelled it incorrectly?) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• The term "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation suggesting lack of credibility. We might want to make the distinction between what are called conspiracy theories and reasonable questions of Ahmed Mohamed's version of the story. I don't think we should imply that all questions of his version are conspiracy theories. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm just taking a wild stab in the dark here, but is Glenn Beck the one promoting conspiracist bullshit? Guy (Help!) 12:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG, Glen Beck, Infowars, Ben Shapiro at Breitbart, Andrew Napolitano, Mark Styen, and others. See above collapsed section "Theories". - Cwobeel (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Who could possibly have predicted that? And in what universe is it remotely controversial to call these nutters conspiracy theorists? Guy (Help!) 14:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We are following the sources, and sources call them conspiracy theories. But there are some editors that are forwarding the notion that this incident was distorted by the media, believe these "alternative narratives" have more weight than the one covered by a preponderance of sources, and object to being labelled conspiracy theories. If they have issues with how these narratives are being depicted, they should complain to the media. WP is not the place to correct perceived wrongs. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A good example of that posture, is Raquel Baranow's above: Anything that doesn't tow the PC line is fringe. I am glad I brought this issue to this noticeboard. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

These responses contain straw man fallacies that imply, for example, that I am disputing that Glen Beck's comments are conspiracy theories, which I'm not. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right, sorry. I think a good compromise would be using "Conspiracy theories and alternate narratives" as the sub-head for that section, and use inline attribution as suggested earlier above. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Alternate narratives"? Srsly? The "alternate narratives" are all speculative and all driven by motivated reasoning. "Right-wing speculation" would be better but is also not good really. "Racist bullshit" is what I would say if this were not Wikipedia... Guy (Help!) 15:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We could use "Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories", which would be accurate for all the included content in that section. BTW, the section being discussed is this: [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice. I think that is perfect. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe better, to avoid WP:ALLEGED: "Conspiracy theories and hoax claims" - Cwobeel (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You might need to talk to Winkelvi about that, since he put "alleged conspiracy theories". Alleged in that case is definitely a problem since the allegations are being made by WP:RS] and calling them "alleged" gives our editorial view more weight than the sources. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Normally "said" or "stated" can be used in place of "alleged", however, I think "allegation" (i.e. a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof) is generally OK to use in this context. - Location (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JzG (talk · contribs), that if a WP:RS says these are Conspiracy theories, then that is simply what the sect title should be. Words like "allegations" and "claims" are Words to Avoid. — Cirt (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed about Richard Dawkins. Older British scientists have a stereotypical tendency to dismiss anything done by someone who is not of the appropriate class or who has not spent an appropriate amount of time doing menial tasks. They tend to furiously discourage young people from pursuing STEM work. They should know better, but it does happen. (This is forum-y, but I really wanted to say it.)

Overall, I think the article currently has an appropriate amount of content on the conspiracy theories. They all fail to consider that Ahmed might not have seen any movies that show bombs that look like that. It's not at all a design for a real bomb, and I think anyone who says it is is probably motivated to arrive at the conclusion that it's a viable bomb. I would like to see more about Islam in Ahmed's life. Fundamentally, this is racist rather than Islamophobic because it appears we are assuming that Ahmed Mohammed is a radical Muslim because of his name and ethnic origin; he may not be a Muslim at all. Also, what are the "reasonable questions" about his version? Roches (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Mohamed is indeed Muslim, according to many reports. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This issue seems frustrating because the news doesn't seem to say basic obvious things. I mean, why would he put a disassembled clock in a pencil case? Maybe so he has more control over when the internal wiring is exposed. Why would he take apart a clock and think it was special? Maybe he wanted to see what happens when you short this pin to ground, that pin to positive voltage. But the mainstream news doesn't explain the obvious, while the fringe news says the loony, and so the loonies get a sort of majority. Best in this case to listen if someone calls something 'conspiracy', but it's less than satisfactory. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We can speculate all we want, but that is not our role as editors, which is to report significant viewpoints based on reliable sources. (I will not engage in a discussion about what was or was not "obvious" per WP:NOTFORUM. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen Dean Burnett's Dawkins decision tree? And that about sums it up. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha! - Location (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dawkins is very rational: “You have to ask the question: Why would a boy take a screwdriver to a clock, take the works out, and put it in a box?” I don't think that's funny. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps also consider the amount of weight given to Conspiracy theories at the much larger article, the WP:GA rated page, September 11 attacks. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• We give no weight to CT in that article...nor should any be given in this article. I think the term speculation(s) should be the heading, for conspiracy theories involve beliefs that have zero basis in fact and insinuate that numerous persons were behind it. It important to not edit from within a wall garden, and while it definitely seems preposterous to imagine the boy in question here or any of his family members wished him to be arrested to make a point, the media sure has taken advantage of this event to try and make a point for them...that's a storyline in itself.--MONGO 17:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the currently named "Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories" section is that it almost entirely consists of various people attempting to debunk the claim that the clock was an invention rather then a re-organisation of parts. This is completely absurd as the article itself claims the clock is merely a re-organisation of parts which makes the article cast itself as part of the 'conspiracy theory'. If you wish to have a 'conspiracy theory' section you should make sure it actually contains the conspiracy theory claims. For that purpose the list on this page is a vastly better selection then the ones currently present on the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident page. Zironic (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you read that section? It does not seem you have ... the section contains a number of fringe theories and speculations, unrelated to the build itself. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

On the current version of that section. 1852 characters are spent on things that are not the build while 2127 characters are spent on the build. Out of those 2127 characters, 275 are a hoax allegation by Andrew Napolitano and 1309 are about Richard Dawkins making an ass out of himself like usual. Zironic (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Now, we have some editors piling on, this time with dubious sources: DIFF and DIFF. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The CTs are mostly about either Islamists or the vast left wing conspiracy drawing attention to the incident. Criticizing the invention is pointless and doesn't really belong in the article. I'm not sure if we need multiple expert opinions on the lack of innovation in this device, since I don't think Mohamed said it was anything other than a clock.

I don't like the use of quotation marks in "impress all his teachers", "set a time", and so on, because they look like scare/sarcasm quotes even though they are intended to indicate a direct quotation.

Is there any RS evidence whatsoever that Mohamed had any explosives, pyrotechnics, chemicals or the like? If there's not, look out for it, as the police would've tested for explosives during their investigation. Roches (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the point regarding the clock is that if he just took a clock apart by taking it out of its case and putting it in a pencil box and mounting the digital display there, why would he want to show something like that to his teachers? It doesn't show any electronic skill on his part. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the article, there is no need to speculate. The background section explains it quite well, IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the exact thing that Richard Dawkins says, hope it's still in the article: “You have to ask the question: Why would a boy take a screwdriver to a clock, take the works out, and put it in a box?” Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cwobeel, I think you're referring to the first paragraph of that Background section,

"In interviews with local media, Mohamed said he wanted to show the engineering teacher at school what he had done over the weekend: take apart a clock and rebuild it inside a pencil case. His father, Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, said that on Monday morning, September 14, 2015, he drove his son to school and encouraged him to display his technological ability.

I was aware of that. In fact I moved that paragraph there from within the section. I was ready to invoke that item in this discussion, but I'm not sure the reporting is correct. Do you know of any confirming sources?

Anyhow, here's an example of what's involved in taking a similar clock apart and putting it in a pencil case.[3] There's nothing there to display regarding electronic skill. So why would he want to show something like that, if that is what he did? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you implying, if anything? Our role as editors is not to speculate, but to report significant viewpoints. Let's focus on the task at hand, shall we? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See my message below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: Please consider a different wording for "our role as editors", "we go with what the sources say" and discussions about speculation; it has a condescending tone.

"Technological skill" is relative here, as is "impress" when used about teachers. Mohamed was in his second week of high school, unless I'm mistaken. He wasn't intending for his skill to be compared with either professional engineers or with the whole body of 14-year-old inventors. The idea was to stand out among his classmates. This may be speculative, but I think it's important to consider a perspective like this. Roches (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

He also ignored the directive of his engineering teacher to keep it in his backpack. There is an unrevealing question of "Why?" Every adult that saw it seemed to be uncomfortable and it's not Islamaphobia, it's Columbinophobia when they brought bombs to school. His father has a rather checkered past for stunts as well. --DHeyward (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Condescending is in the eye of the beholder. We are indeed here not to pass judgement or to speculate on motives, rather, we are here to report on what sources say (or at least last time I checked). - Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, It wasn't my speculation. As Raquel Baranow pointed out above, this was essentially Dawkins's question which was in a reliable source. For reference, here's Dawkins's question again along with first a quote from him that was in the same reliable source.[4]

"He got a clock, got a screwdriver, opened the clock, took the works out and put them in the box. He did nothing else whatever. There was no creative act in that at all, he took it to school, as an invention, and then a teacher was afraid it might be a bomb. It wasn't a bomb, it was an unaltered clock which he had taken out of its case."

“You have to ask the question: Why would a boy take a screwdriver to a clock, take the works out, and put it in a box?”

I think the video that I showed before [5] will help explain what Dawkins meant. For comparison, here is an image of Ahmed Mohamed's clock [6] .

BTW, Dawkins's question was in this version of the Wikipedia article [7] before it was removed [8]. You restored part of the paragraph, but not Dawkins's question.[9] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

How about adding this to break up a wall of text:

You have to ask the question: Why would a boy take a screwdriver to a clock, take the works out, and put it in a box?” -- Richard Dawkins

Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The obvious answer is "budding curiosity." When I was a lad my mother despaired of my always taking things apart to find out how they worked. One thing led to another, and now I make my living by finding out how things work. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You really have to wonder if Dawkins has never met a 14-year-old boy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't headed towards resolution. Most fringe issues have a viewpoint that reflects a scientific consensus or at least a consensus reality, while this seems to be a mix of opinions. Here, the majority viewpoint appears to consist of speculation just as much as the minority viewpoint does. If the claim was that the clock could run without electricity, that's WP:FRINGE. This may be more of a WP:RS issue.

My reading of NPOV 1:1-3 does not allow substitution of "carefully and critically analyzing" by "reporting." Roches (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There are still editors keen in adding more conspiracy theories to the article. See Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident#Sister? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You think it was a conspiracy that he has a sister that said she was suspended by the same district after someone accused her of threatening to blow something up? That's exactly what she said so its not a conspiracy theory. Which part do you dispute: sister? suspended? accusation? --DHeyward (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/23/ahmeds-sister-admits-school-suspension-alleged-bomb-threat-3-years-earlier/ ^{breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}, WND [http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/clock-boys-sister-was-suspended-for-bomb-threat/], Infowars www.infowars.com/clockmeister-ahmed-mohameds-sister-was-once-suspended-from-school-for-threatening-to-blow-it-up/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}, Pamela Geller [10] and a large number of conservative blogs [11]. Enough said. The comments from Ahmed sister, can be interpreted in more than one fashion. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No, there is only this [12]. That's the interview where it came out and that source is used reliably in the article. Again, just because it's covered in multiple sources you don't like doesn't make it less true or not in sources that are non-controversial. The DailyBeast is fine and it matches exactly what I said. Which part do you dispute: sister? suspended? accusation? --DHeyward (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I like these fringe sources actually, they are always a lot to fun to read the nutty articles they publish. When only fringe sources publish bombastic headlines, and no other reputable sources follow, what does it tell us as WP editors? (tip: leave it out of the article) - Cwobeel (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"When only fringe sources publish bombastic headlines..." (bolding added) DailyBeast isn't "fringe". I guess that makes your litmus test invalid in this case. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the article in the Daily Beast. The article's headline is: ‘Man, I Went Viral’: My Day With Ahmed Mohamed, the Most Famous Boy on Earth[13]. The only articles with the sensationalist headlines, are the nutty fringe. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about the headline? Headlines are not reliable as they are often written by an editor, not the journalist. Look at the identical AP story in different markets and they can all have a different headline. Are you not aware of this practice? Please tell me you are not using headlines for reference material. --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How did character assassination of a 14-year-old become a cause célèbre of the American right wing and the neoconservative Islamophobes? Are they just that jealous of his invites? jps (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's put ideology aside a moment and consider policy. Heading titles are under editorial discretion, but "conspiracy" is prejudicial language, and consensus has usually been that it needs reliable sourcing. We have ample quality sourcing that conspiracy theories concerning Ahmed exist. We can certainly say that. To call or classify any specific idea as a conspiracy theory should have quality sourcing calling that specific idea a conspiracy theory. The best we've got along those lines is the charmingly titled "Why is Richard Dawkins Such a Jerk?" so no, I don't think reasonable quality benchmarks have been met. Rhoark (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen the articles in the collapsed "Sources referring to these as conspiracy theories" section? If this speculation was labeled conspiracy theories, that might make it notable enough to include in the article. If they aren't, then they are just opinions and their inclusion in the article is unimportant per WP:UNDUE: avoid giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" is a correct header for this section. What I want to know is why we're including so many of them in the first place. Epic Genius (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks to the good work of a number of editors, that section has been reduced in accordance to WP:UNDUE, but may need some more trimming. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy

Water fluoridation controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Look at this article. The lede includes nothing about the fact that water fluoridation is perhaps one of the most successful public health initiatives ever undertaken (where it hasn't been sabotaged by pseudoscientific conspiracy theorists). The entire thing treats the conspiracy theorists as though they have a valid point. Can we get some help here?

jps (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has established many articles that IMHO were created to appease a virulent anti-fluoridation crowd. Water fluoridation is a strong article that remains well curated because the antifluoridation advocates have not been able to find WP:MEDRS sources that would make fluoridation anything but a major medical breakthrough. The antifluoridation groups are (fortunately for those supporting fluoridation) scientifically illterate so they are having trouble articulating what they feel so strongly about/against. The trade-off is that since the antifluoridation advocates cannot make any headway on the main article, many subsidiary niggling articles have been created:

• Fluoride therapy
• Fluoride poisoning
• Fluorine deficiency
• Water fluoridation controversy
• Dental fluorosis
• Skeletal fluorosis
• History of water fluoridation
• Water fluoridation in the United States
• Water fluoridation in Australia
• Fluoridation by country

So that is my view. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I just stepped into a scene from Dr. Strangelove? On a more serious note, this is clearly POV pushing on a large scale. A lot of these articles should be trimmed or simply merged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They are unlikely to be merged, as they are mostly fringe gumf they wont be allowed into the main articles due to lack of reliable sourcing and scientific support. Or any science at all in some cases. It would be like trying to merge Homeopathy into cancer treatments... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought Dr. Strangelove should be mentioned earlier in the article, because the fluoridation conspiracy is presented in that film as patently insane. Now, the Soviet Union fluoridated its water, but I guess there's nothing stopping them from using a Commie mind control plot on their own people, provided that it turns people into Communists. That would also explain why they stopped fluoridating in 1990. No Communism, no fluoride. Or maybe it had something to do with the economic collapse of the USSR. When water fluoridation is discontinued, it's for economic reasons. The article doesn't say that at all, as far as I can tell. When the program was introduced, people drank more tap water than they do now, and had less access to 'targeted' fluoridation from toothpaste and dentist visits. The changes mean that people get enough fluoride from other sources, so it's no longer cost-effective to fluoridate all the tap water. Roches (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to introduce Dr. Strangelove connections into that article years ago, if I recall correctly. It is super-suprising to me how much headway ideologues have made with respect to these nonsense claims. I would welcome and support a wholesale overhaul of these articles. jps (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You know you're just whacking yourself off onyour own ego and circular logic right? "I'm right because I'm right lol silly conspiracy theorists ruining muh encyclopedia"--Sιgε |д･) 15:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Too much fluoride? jps (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Christian thinkers in science

Is this list questionable? It seems to have little encyclopedic value, given there's minimal evidence for the majority of them that Christianity had any connection with their work, or even that they had any significant writings on Christianity. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it even specifically notable as per WP:NOTABILITY? John Carter (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. nominated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There are probably dozens of Things That Wikipedia Is Not that could be applied here. But the topic of the article has clearly received substantial coverage by reliable and independent sources. If it is not notable, then why is List of atheists in science and technology notable? Most of them didn't write anything substantial about that topic. The existence of the other lists necessitates this list, especially for the pre-modern era where all Europeans were Christian by default. (This is not WP:OTHERSTUFF; it means that without this list every scientist born before 1700 was Jewish or Muslim.) Roches (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Which of the people on here are actually notable Christian thinkers? I'll grant you Hildegard of Bergen and Isaac Newton. Name ten others from 1401 and later. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There's some discussion on the talk page about whether the article is a list of scientists who were notable Christian thinkers or a list of scientists who were Christians. I think it is the latter. List of Christian scientists redirects to this article, but that phrase is associated with Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science. Changing the title, or changing the introductory content, could be done without deleting the article. Roches (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's an irredeemable mess. Newton is listed but he was a natural philosopher not a scientist, and he actually refused to take Holy Orders even though it was, at that time, mandatory for metriculation from Cambridge (he did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity). There's an interesting intersection between Christianity and science in the Jesuit community, the Pope has a science degree, but this is not an article about that, it's an article that seeks to show that there is no incompatibility between science and religious dogma based on fallacious appeals to authority, syllogistic fallacies and begging the question. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST:

• List of Buddhist thinkers in science
• List of Islamic thinkers in science
• List of Jewish thinkers in science
• List of Hindu thinkers in science
• List of Zoroastrian thinkers in science
• List of Sikh thinkers in science
• List of Shinto thinkers in science
• List of Deistic thinkers in science
• List of New Age thinkers in science

jps (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The article was kept on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT, removal of the philosophers and natural philosophers was reverted on the basis that people want to present all of scientific thought since forever as being science, a move to list of scientists with Christian faith was reverted for no reason at all. This article is a festering sore. The group of editors who own it seem to think there is no problem at all with calling Isaac Newton a Christian thinker despite his rejection of the Trinity, refusal to take holy orders, and the consensus of sources that he was deist not a Christian, oh and byb the way he was a mathematician and natural philosopher not a scientist. This article is WP:SYN from the title down. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of thinking that this is something which might have to be taken to DRN or ANI myself. I am the first to say that for all I know there might be notability for the topic, maybe, but I haven't seen anything which addresses the matter of of criteria for inclusion or exclusivon. That being the case, this looks to me like having some serious behavior issues involved which probably have to be addressed somewhere by some independent parties. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's an instance where AfD was probably not the best answer, though WP:TNT is tempting when an article is as BAD as this one. I started going through and removing unrelated commentary and poorly sourced material. There is a lot of it. Realize that to be included on the list the person has to be referenced in a third-party source as (1) being in science and technology and (2) having prominent Christian beliefs that third-party sources have identified as relevant to their notability. Otherwise, remove the people. Also, a lot of the commentary that is being included in the article is irrelevant. This is a list so WP:MOSLIST we should follow. jps (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this article. Excellent sources, interesting, notable, relevant. I'm detecting bias by certain progressive-leaning majority users here.--Sιgε |д･) 15:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd also note that it looks like no actual fringe theory (nor even any other theory) has been mentioned in this discussion, and none seems to be obviously connected with it. Thus the question seems to have little to do with this noticeboard. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a fringe theory associated with a certain common argument that creationists are known to make: namely that Christianity was vital for the development and progress of science. This is somewhat incidental to this list, but it is possible to see this rather synthetic accumulation as a sort of soapbox for this claim. We should be on guard for this, of course. By itself, there is nothing wrong with such a list, but, for example, the inclusion criteria are still being discussed at the talkpage and we should be mindful of the fact that certain fringe theories could be (wittingly or unwittingly) promoted depending on how the criteria/sourcing is chosen to work. jps (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You're making a claim with no evidence that itself is ironically fringe in toto. This article is actually quite notable and interesting even for non-Christians, notwithstanding the fact that Christianity is the world's most popular religion. Moreover, there should be a "Muslim thinkers in science" page in my opinion, but you're using a red herring. You like to complain a lot.--Sιgε |д･) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's simply a fact that creationists have tried to argue that there are more scientists who are Christian than aren't. Additionally, the article name has been changed to conform with the list titles of other articles. jps (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque

There appears to be POV pushing legitimacy on this alt med topic. More eyes would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that shit again... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw what you did there. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 09:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Bong-Han

Kim Bong-han (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous AfD closed as no consensus and noted a pressing need for substantial work to remedy real problems. Edits in the last six months: pretty much nothing - not even fixing the miscapitalisation of the article name. Article is still an abject failure of WP:NPOV. AfD'd again, the same "keep and clean up" comments. From the same people who didn't clean it up last time. This is one thing that annooys the hell out of me: people who want an article and will argue passionately for it, but cannot be arsed ot fix major issues. Rant over. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Miscapitalization? AFAICT, it's following WP:NCKOREAN. Kolbasz (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We did manage to delete the auxiliary article on the primo-vascular system. It may be that this particular doctor is famous for his attempts to justify acupuncture in the same way that, for example, Jacques Benveniste is famous for water memory. The problem is that there aren't a lot of independent sources written about the person. jps (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiHsC

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiHsC

Thoughts and comments welcome.

jps (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Over two thirds of the sources cited are to the author of the term itself, thus the article functions primarily as self promotion. — Cirt (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional help at this AfD would be appreciated. It is currently being railroaded by a number of accounts who are arguing over the claims of the theory rather than the more problematic sourcing and WP:NFRINGE issues. jps (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, deletion went through, but my attempt to remove this from other articles in Wikipedia is being resisted. jps (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Lane

I have opened a thread in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mark Lane. - Location (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Skeptoid

There exists a template, {{Skeptoid}}, used to link episodes of Skeptoid to articles. I do not think this is appropriate. I respect Brian Dunning's work but driving traffic to his websites is not in our mission, and his wire fraud conviction suggests we should be wary of offering any official-looking endorsement. I have nominated it for deletion, people here are likely to be familiar with Skeptoid and may have an opinion. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think there was a user in the past who was systematically removing Skeptoid links in all articles which also seemed like overkill. I don't think a template is something we should be encouraging especially now that VE has a user-friendly citation template. Yeah, I agree with deleting this. jps (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely harmless. It just a template for properly and consistently formatting ELs, not a navbox or other prominent display. This is no different than, say, Template:Findagrave. Unless we are saying that we shouldn't have these links in EL, then there is zero reason to delete this. A template providing consistent formatting is not an "endorsement". Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I have no problem with people creating their own userspace templates and then plopping in a subst if they want to include it, but putting it in main wikispace is an endorsement of the source. I note that Skeptoid broadcasts have been linked to rather broad topics sometimes where they are inappropriate. For obscure fringe topics, Skeptoid can be a great external link, but for topics like circumcision, well, that's another matter. jps (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a decision that can be made at the individual article level, but that has nothing to do with the appropriateness of a template which is just a formatting tool. Gamaliel (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I think having a template like this is an encouragement to link to as many pages as possible. I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia space and I certainly don't think it should exist without transclusion. jps (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Would forcing transclusion be an acceptable compromise? I understand your concerns about promoting links, but it seems silly to deprive editors of a valid tool in cases where the links are appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

How does forcing transclusion happen? Can you make subst part of the template or something? jps (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:, I am not so sure it is a valid tool. Dunning's views on particular subjects can be cited to his books. The podcasts have no independent editorial oversight and often the same content appears with footnotes in a book anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

United States and state-sponsored terrorism

United States and state-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the above article, I have removed what are tantamount to conspiracy theories that the CIA was involved in a couple terrorist attacks (see [14], [15]). An extra set of eyes would be helpful. - Location (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a whole new seam of crazy that I had not encountered. Well done. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fringe science organizations

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fringe science organizations

Another article that is a synthesis, in my opinion. Please comment.

jps (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I think VQuakr has the right idea here. Move to List of fringe science organizations, and remove any that fail WP:RS. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A little help here? The current trajectory is for another "no consensus" outcome. jps (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Global warming skepticism redirects

An interesting RfC is taking place here.

jps (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this a Fringe Source?

This seems to have gotten into the article on Dorothy Kilgallen. It looks pretty fringe to me and I have serious doubts about it's being RS. But I'd like some other opinions before I take it out of the article. [16]. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The article contains the usual conspiracy fodder in which the "evidence" is built upon hearsay and speculation. Not remotely reliable. It does not help that the bio of the author indicates that her work on Kilgallen is noted in one of Richard Belzer's conspiracy books, Hit List. - Location (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely an unreliable source.- MrX 15:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha! No. This is National Enquirer stuff. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Author Sara Jordan published her article a few years before Richard Belzer and his co-author cited it in their book Hit List. How can you hold her responsible for their conspiracy tripping?

Also, if you read the Jordan article carefully, you find that she used audio and video interviews of several people who knew Dorothy Kilgallen personally. They include her two hairdressers and a Pakistani graduate student at Columbia University law school named Ibne Hassan. Ibne lived at Dorothy Kilgallen's home for more than a year. He worked as a tutor for her young son. He knew mother and son personally. He and the son were sleeping in separate rooms when Dorothy died in yet another room. Ibne saw police officers the next morning and afternoon.

You might think that a woman who was famous in the 1960s for gossiping could not possibly interact daily with a Pakistani graduate student at Columbia University law school, but she did. Sara Jordan's article is a reliable source. If she wanted to sensationalize very old show business gossip, why would she bother with an immigrant from Pakistan who earned (a few years after Dorothy died) a Doctor of Philosophy degree in political science?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source by any means. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Your theory makes no sense unless you can prove that Sara Jordan somehow forced Richard Belzer and his co-author to quote her article in their book. Her article was published a few years before their book was. Jordan was 18 years old in 2007 when her article was published. She had lived her entire life in Iowa. How can she know Mr. Belzer or his co-author personally, let alone force them to do anything? The references to her article stay in the Wikipedia article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It deeply saddens me that this woman is remembered more for her death than her life. With regards to the fringe theory it's definitely not RS and should not be given any substance by wikipedia. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Human photosynthesis

This page just got created:

Human photosynthesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anyone know if this is a notable fringe theory? Kolbasz (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not finding discussion in independent sources. If it has only been written about by people promoting the idea, it won't be possible to write a sensible article. The article also seems to cover several distinct ideas, some of which might be better placed in the article on inedia, which is a notable topic. --Amble (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've heard it a few times and it might be worth an article on various fringe theories presented in context. This current version is leaning too heavily on research from the Human Photosynthesis Study Center (whose website will sell you a box of "QIAPI 1" photosynthesis pills for $55) and giving absurd OR analysis ("a long distance swimmer had a suntan, so was probably photosynthesising") - I've cleaned it up a little and restored the synth/medrs templates I put there yesterday.

The article creator has the username PhototrophicHuman and is uploading imagery by Ty Shedleski as their "own work". (Their first draft of the article opened "Human photosynthesis or phototrophism is a hypothesis by neuroscientist Ty Shedleski".) --McGeddon (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Voted. I critiqued the journals cited in the article as at least 3 of the 5 are questionable. Roches (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

From a purely scientific standpoint it's total bullshit. It's basic organic chemistry. Krebs is turning in his grave. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

June 1962 Alcatraz escape

It's not terribly wacko, but "evidence" that the Morris and the Anglin brothers may have made it out of the Bay alive was presented on the History Channel last night. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive230#John and Clarence Anglin. - Location (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Poul Thorsen

Poul Thorsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For those interested in the MMR vaccine controversy, see the above and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poul Thorsen. - Location (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Anthroposophic medicine & cancer

There have been recent attempts to water-down criticism and imply great things about mistletoe treatment for cancer. More eyes might be necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, the mistletoe quacks. They also use homeopathy and sundry other mystical bullshit. Sadly our articles on the Steiner cult's schools are largely uncritical. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Polish census of 1931

The Polish census of 1931 is reporting conspiracy theories about the census underreporting ethnic minorities without labeling them as such, noting that they are unsupported by statistical evidence from a demographer, or that the census itself did not count minorities, (as in the U.S.). To wit: "After World War II, Apolinary Hartglas reported that Edward Szturm de Sztrem, the pre-war chairman of the Polish census statistical office, admitted that the census returns, particularly those from the south-east, had been altered at the executive level. Another account alleged that he admitted "that officials had been directed to under count minorities, especially those in the eastern provinces"."

The first claim is attributed to Apolinary Hartglas, who served in the Judenrat, by Joseph Marcus in "Social and Political History of the Jews in Poland, 1919-1939" (1983). Walter de Gruyter. p. 17. ISBN 978-90-279-3239-6, with a web link here: https://books.google.com/books?id=80r6Mbnxf8IC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=Edward+Szturm+de+Sztrem+census&source=bl&ots=O_JJJ2M5oC&sig=98RkAiV0uwPcjRJQWe-pLS45zfE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Szturm%20de%20Sztrem%20census&f=false The exact quote from Apolinary Hartglas for the claim is not given. That book was published in Polish and the only review of it on Amazon makes no mention of any claims about the census returns having been altered: http://www.amazon.com/pograniczu-dwoch-swiatow-Apolinary-Hartglas/dp/8386678356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1445009279&sr=8-1&keywords=Apolinary+Hartglas

The second allegation falsely implies that Poland had attempted to count minorities, since, like the U.S. at the time in the 1930 United States Census, the Poles asked no such ethnicity/nationality question. The source for that is Richard Blanke (1993). Orphans of Versailles: The Germans in Western Poland, 1918-1939. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-1803-1, with a web link here: http://books.google.com/books?id=80r6Mbnxf8IC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=Edward+Szturm+de+Sztrem+census&source=bl&ots=O_JJJ2M5oC&sig=98RkAiV0uwPcjRJQWe-pLS45zfE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result The exact source for this allegation is not available from what is provided online, so it is impossible to verify from what was given. I did check the bibliography (pg. 249) which is visible online. Blanke does not list 1931 Census of Poland in that, but instead lists the tertiary Institute For The Study Of Minority Problems, "The Polish and Non-Polish Populations Of Poland: 1931 Census Of Poland (1931). From the bibliography, and by reading the census itself where it clearly only surveyed religion and "mother tongue", it is clear that Blanke never read the census itself. Therefore, what he wrote is clearly erroneous, and this work is thus a quadranary source of dubious value or note.

Claims that a national census was intentionally altered, or under-counted its minority population, when it never asked a nationality/ethnicity question, should be regarded as WP:EXCEPTIONAL. As such this should be supported by a detailed academic study by a qualified demographer using statistical comparison of the population statistically with the previous 1921 Census of Poland, and not just rely on so much gossip and communist era propaganda.Doctor Franklin (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC) [Edit to note that without the quotes from the primary sources, it is not possible to verify that the secondary source has accurately reported the allegation and is thus RS of the same per WP:VERIFY.]Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit to note that the source for this claim is now being reported as communist propaganda: Edward Szturm de Sztrem, "Prawdziwa statystyka", Kwartalnik Historyczny 3 (1973) pp 664-7Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So, the communists published the paper 11 years after the man died. The editor who published it, Tomaszewski, was a member of the Polish Communist Party. Tomaszewski would become the recognized "authority" on interpolating ethnicity from the census's enumeration of mother tongue and religion without taking into account that, in territories lost to the Soviet Union, at least one highly relevant archive had been destroyed in Lwow/Lvov/Lviv deliberately by the Soviets. (Norman Davies, God's Playground, a History of Poland, Columbia University Press, 1982, ISBN 0231053525, p.558.) So in this case, working back to the original source, we have an alleged statement by Edward Szturm de Sztrem (primary source), reported posthumously by Communist Party historian Tomaszewski as editor in "Kwartalnik Historyczny" ("Historical Quarterly"), a communist academic publication, (the secondary source), being reported yet again by other alleged academic publications (tertiary sources or beyond). It may be notable that the communists attempted to discredit Edward Szturm de Sztrem posthumously, but communist era publications did not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy to be considered RS. No serious person would dispute this.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This looks more like a content dispute revolving around the reliability of sources. I suggest it be moved to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I am not seeing much here that could be fairly described as "Fringe Theory." -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegations that a national census was rigged should be supported by some statistical analysis from a qualified demographer rather than purported confessions from someone who died 11 years prior.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that it's a content dispute revolving around sourcing. Again I would take it to WP:RSN. I'd also consider citing WP:EXTRAORDINARY in your argument. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think its really about math and statistics. What statistical analysis supports this conclusion? In comparison with the 1921 Census of Poland, (which had enumerated ethnicity) the 1931 did not. It enumerated mother tongue and ethnicity. So [using language as the implied indicator of ethnicity] in 1931 the Poles slightly decreased as a percentage of the population, as did Ukrainiains/Ruthenians, and the Jews [by religion] increased:

group 1921 1931 +/- %

Poles 17.789.287 (69.23%) 21,993,444 (68.91%) -0.32%

Ukrainians 0 (0.00%) 3,221,975 (10.10%) +10.10%

Ruthenians 3.898.428 (15.17%) 1,219,647 (03.82%) -11.35%

U + R = 3.898.428 (15.17%) 4,444,622 (13.92%) -01.25%

Jews 2.048.878 (07.97%) 3,113,933 (09.76%) +01.79%

(See diff here for chart calculating %, POV blanked by Iryna Harpy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=684704520#Results )

So, if we were to believe that the results had been rigged by the Polish Interior Ministry, by the numbers, the results were intended to decrease the number of Poles and Ukrainians/Ruthenians and others by increasing the number of Jews. [Note that I did not subtract the number of Jews by religion who spoke Polish, Ukrainian, or Ruthenian as a declared mother tongue. Had I done so the numbers would have illustrated this point more strongly.] So the implied conspiracy appears to be an anti-semitic smear that the "Interior Ministry" had favored the Jews. Just four years earlier, the communist government had deported most of the Jews that survived WWII.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a dispute that should either go to the reliable sources noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland for consideration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

List of non-mainstream science organizations

I added some astroturfing organisations and some groups promoting quack diagnoses to List of non-mainstream science organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I think this has some potential as a collection of the various groups of tinfoil hat wearers. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yuck. I do not like the name of that list. What is "non-mainstream science" anyway? jps (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the list and tweaked the definition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There is some push back over the list on the talk page at List of pseudoscientific organizations. Any interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I see why you did that but I think there is more to it. Please see the talk page (currently at Talk:List of organizations opposing mainstream science, I stated an RfC. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Faith healing and pseudoscience

WP:AN#Reverted non-admin closure of RFC on Talk:Faith healing.

Some troubling WP:ADVOCACY seems to be a-brewing there.

jps (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RF resonant cavity thruster

RF resonant cavity thruster, is the current article for the EM Drive that hit the mainstream press a few months back. Since it violates the law of conservation of momentum, we can be clear that it's up there with cold fusion and the like, right? --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 08:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article was created on 7 September 2006. My guess is that an article on a magic thruster that uses Isaac Newton as a reference is probably a fringe topic! However, as a pragmatist, I'm going to be a little more cautious when heating leftovers in my microwave. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So we have no issues with saying that this is fringe science and that any position on this device other than "it doesn't work" is a fringe position that can be discarded? --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Go with the sources. Anything that is not drawn from a properly compliant RS can be nuked. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No one should be debating whether it is fringe, it definitely is. The question that should be brought up is as per WP:FRINGE/PS: Is it Pseudoscience or Questionable Science? The fact that NASA's Eagleworks experiments found enough anomalous thrust that they have decided to pursue a new series of ongoing tests indicates Questionable Science. In fact it seems that everyone that has actually made one of these and tested it finds some very small anomalous thrust but can't explain why. However, the fact that no one can easily explain how it produces thrust without breaking the law of conservation (although some try), indicates Pseudoscience. If it is closer to QS, then the current article seems appropriate, but if it is unambiguously PS, then some rewrite will probably be necessary. It seems to me to be somewhere in the middle. what is the guideline in this case? InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  20:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Eagleworks' MO is speculative physics Hail Mary passes. My understanding from reading the original discussion on the NASA Space Flight forums is the Eagleworks team are convinced that the device does not work, and instead, are trying to find sources of error in the experiment. Furthermore, Eagleworks isn't really an official NASA activity, it's more or less Sonny White's hobby club and he funds it with his pet project budget that he gets from NASA. The only people really holding it out as a viable solution are the designers of the various devices, and the Chinese research teams. Only reason the subject is notable is the mainstream coverage it got. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

True, Eagleworks is studying a whole range of prototype, probably bogus, and/or impossible propulsion mechanisms. The facts from the reliable sources that we have (the nasa spaceflight forums are not a RS unfortunately) are that they and the chinese researchers got positive results, whether they were trying to debunk it or not, and that they decided that further research was needed and would go ahead. Until that ongoing research comes back and shows what caused the anomalous thrust and they finally decide to throw this in the bin, its probably closer to QS than PS. In any case, it is fringe, and the article should lean heavily toward the skeptical. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  23:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Zorats Karer

IP adding fringe material sourced to Frank Collin aka Frank Joseph, a website of a project which was indeed sponsored by Oxford for no more thatn £2,000described funding of projects and which hasn't any peer-reviewed output. Worse yet, the source for some of the conclusions of the project is Joseph's book Before Atlantis: 20 Million Years of Human and Pre-Human Cultures. I also removed some earlier text from an astrology website.[17] I've reverted twice but expect it will be replaced. Despite the project taking place 5 years ago, there are still no results on its website.[18] Doug Weller (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So strange. What is it about nationalism+archaeoastronomy which brings out the wild speculation? jps (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ken Ham and the ages of the Earth and the universe

People may wish to join the discussion about how to appropriately describe a claim that the earth is 6000 years old at Talk:Ken_Ham#.22Prove.22. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Attributing it to scientific consensus is silly. It's simply a fact. jps (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Issue brewing on WP:NOR/N concerning definition of Jews

See WP:NORN#Definition of Jews. Gross original research/WP:SYNTH violation. The instigator's user page is, um, telling. I can see, perhaps, some of his complaints but I also see the potential for introduction of "the Jews have no right to Palestine because they don't really come from there" theories. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Interesting case of a zoo that has been caught in a few controversies one of which being the promotion of creationism. There are accounts active on the talkpage arguing that the attributed criticisms of the creationism in the park should be identified as people with axes to grind against religion or something. People like Ben Goldacre and Alice Roberts.

jps (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream vs. consensus science: a discussion

Talk:List_of_organizations_opposing_mainstream_science#Requested_move_26_October_2015

I encourage some comments there.

jps (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Crack epidemic

Crack epidemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Crack epidemic appears to give way too much weight Gary Webb and the conspiracy theory that the CIA caused the "crack epidemic", and far too little coverage to the actual growth of crack usage. This should probably be reworked as History of crack cocaine with the conspiracy stuff moved back to the conspiracy-themed Allegations of CIA drug trafficking or CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking. (I honestly cannot keep up with all the various articles suggesting that the CIA was/is involved in drug dealing.) Ping Rgr09. - Location (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Crack epidemic is a particularly unhelpful article as it stands. The CIA-Contra stuff takes up almost two thirds of the actual text of the article, not counting the lists at the end. This is wildly excessive. It has all the usual problems on this subject: it fails to distinguish between the Kerry report, which accuses the Contras, and Gary Webb, who implicates the CIA. This is a common theme throughout most of the Wikipedia coverage of the 'CIA-Cocaine' connection. It gives an inadequate description of what Webb actually claimed and suppresses all mention of the severe criticism that Webb's version of the origins and spread of crack cocaine attracted. Could use a rewrite of this content for sure, but I doubt that I'll have time in the near future; maybe next year.

The article name itself does not necessarily reflect a conspiratorial mindset; for example, 'Crack Epidemic' is used as a section title on a DEA webpage cited in the article. Nonetheless, it is a vague, ill-defined metaphor that makes it hard to improve the article. Renaming it History of crack cocaine would certainly help, the current article would fit in as one section of a larger, better defined piece. I support a name change along those lines. Rgr09 (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, this source should be used: The CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy: A Review of the Justice Department's Investigations and Prosecutions (December, 1997 - released July, 1998). The DOJ/OIG report followed the Kerry Report and addressed Webb's charges. - Location (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott

For those familiar with 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 Truth movement, I am asking for input in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Peter Dale Scott. Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Vaccine-related user issue at BLP noticeboard

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive230#Need admin eyes for recurring BLP violations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am wondering if someone more familiar with the MMR vaccine controversy might want to take a look at this article, specifically Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.#Views on autism and vaccines. First, it seems to me that the section should at least have a link to the controversy, otherwise his views on this wouldn't be notable. Second, the last bit gives a fair amount of weight to a statement he made in Sacramento. The source for that quote also quotes Richard Pan saying: "I think it is dangerous that he is spreading misinformation about something that’s very important for public health." Should that be included as notable criticism of his views? - Location (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This appears to tie in with Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Vaccine-related user issue at BLP noticeboard. - Location (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

It's that time again: another off-wiki assault on our article. May need more than usual vigilance from fringe-savvy folk. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The author of the piece does have a Wikipedia account that has been actively editing related articles over the last few weeks (though the account refrains from editing the Deepak Chopra article in particular). Owing to WP:OUTING rules, that's all the more that I'm going to say, but since activity in alternative health articles seems to be something the account is not necessarily going to avoid, a WP:COIN case may be worthwhile. jps (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopaedia!-Roxy the dog™ woof 14:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Metatron's cube

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metatron's Cube

There seems to be a lot of these kinds of articles about. jps (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Vesica piscis

Vesica piscis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is there any part of this article which is not original research? Much of it appears to be WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Now not so convinced after researching a bit more. I'm not sure exactly how this article should develop, but is seems okay. jps (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

2011 Vancouver UFO sighting

2011 Vancouver UFO sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notable enough for a standalone article, or another example of WP:RECENTISM gone amuck? I am of the opinion that this particular incident is no more notable than a library of similar kinds of incidents. It received the same local news coverage and then died like so many before and after it. jps (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A self-confessed hoaxer rigged a kite with LED lights, as reported by United Press International. This is really the totality of the story. However our article seems to give equal validity to UFO-org spokespeople. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't have articles on one-off hoaxes, IMHO: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Vancouver UFO sighting. jps (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Unzicker

Alexander Unzicker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wrote one cranky book published by a reputable publisher which was panned by Peter Woit. And that's it as far as notability is concerned. Should we have a WP:FRINGEBLP on the man?

jps (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Unzicker. jps (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Flower of life (again)

We deleted is 6 months ago because it failed inclusion guidelines for fringe sources. Now it's back:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (geometry).

jps (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the band Cold Play is using the shape for their upcoming album A Head Full of Dreams, and the rumor-based websites are using the term rather freely to describe the shape. I feel a clash of sourcing standards coming on. The pop music editors routinely take rumor-based websites as reliable sources for what things are. Ugh. jps (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Phytotherapy

Given that "phytotherapy" seems to be another way of saying "herbal medicine"[19] I'm wondering why we have separate articles. The Phytotherapy article is not great, with some dodgy sourcing. Does anybody think the topics of "phytotherapy" and "Herbalism" should be considered distinct? Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. [20]. Per WP:ASTONISH, I think herbalism is the right target. jps (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting this after over a year away from substantial edits to these articles, my reading is that 'Phytotherapy' is not directly equivalent to herbalism, though there is some overlap. Phytotherapy is herbalism which seeks to work within the bounds of modern research and testing. Whether it does this successfully is a question for the article to cover, but herbalism in general covers a bunch of practices that have no interest in research support for their claims.Dialectric (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you got a source which supports that definition? My (admittedly far from exhaustive) searches suggested that phytotherapy and herbalism were synonymous in the medical literature. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

(Add) Aha! Ernst is good on this. This suggests to me our articles should be organized differently as Herbalism appears to be an umbrella term for both "traditional" herbalism and phytotherapy? Alexbrn (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica also makes this distinction, and I believe I can find other sources. These terms are used inconsistently across the web, which makes structuring these related articles a bit difficult. There is also the question of how pharmacognosy relates. Your point that herbalism can be an umbrella term covering "traditional" herbalism and phytotherapy sounds reasonable.Dialectric (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Publishing houses of similar names?

Does anyone have a good way to check if the Women's Printing Society which was publishing feminist and suffragette materials before and during the turn of the century is the same Women's Printing Society (ltd) which is responsible for publishing theosophical and fringe materials in early and mid century? (see the sources referenced in Temple of the Stars, Glastonbury#Glastonbury_zodiac, Constance Wachtmeister for example) this [21] suggests the original shut down during WWI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Gluten-free diet and autism.

On the Gluten-free diet page we find the claim "Only a subset of patients may improve some autistic behaviours with a gluten-free diet." Looking at the references, (one is in spanish, two show only the abstract) this looks like a fringe theory based upon some very speculative language in the one source I could access ("6. Is Autism Part of the NCGS Spectrum?" in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820047/ ).

Could someone with more familiarity with medical/dietary claims than I have please look into this? Thanks, --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Nigma Talib

I am concerned that the sources used in the article Nigma Talib are not reliable because they give undo prominence to fringe theories, like alternative medicine, naturopathy, adrenal fatigue, and functional medicine. Basically, many of the articles cited are from magazines and "features" in tabloid-style news papers, which seem to be promoting the article's subject and her private naturopathy practices. I found evidence that these articles may be the result of a PR campaign paid for by Nigma Talib. At least one of the authors of a cited source also writes for a online make-up store which appears to have a business relationship with the subject:

• https://www.victoriahealth.com/editorial/skin-problems

There is also a glaring violation of WP:BOOKSTORE in sourcing Amazon.co.uk bestsellers on a narrow category in mentioning the subject's book in the article.

I believe the current discussion on that pages's talk Talk:Nigma_Talib#Notability provides the most detailed information about my concerns. I hope more editors can chime in on this debate.

Thank you! Delta13C (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigma Talib. jps (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Numerology

The section on "Numerology in science" seem to take a different subject which tends to make the fringe material look less so. How to handle it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It is something of a misnomer, but it's undeniable that the word "numerology" is used in such contexts, and entirely as a criticism. It may be worth emphasizing this. A similar thing is when scientists use the word "magical" or "miraculous". [22]. jps (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviews of 9 fringe archaeology books in Antiquity Magazine

This is great - I ran across What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods which mentions that section in Antiquity Magazine with 9 reviews of fringe books which are here. Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thank you! Delta13C (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Integral Thought

There's a walled garden of articles linked to Integral_theory_(Ken_Wilber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) / {{Integral thought}}, the contents of which read like the Sokal paper. I cannot tell if this is normal psychobabble, or fringe nonsense. All I can tell is that it makes grandiose claims and includes weapons grade arm-waving. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We tried to clean house from these articles a few months back. Turns out there is a rather large group of transhumanists watching these articles. Integral Transformative Practice is particularly awful. jps (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, should Integral education be a redirect? jps (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with this:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral Transformative Practice

jps (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving on to this:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral education.

jps (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Corbett Report

Has anyone heard of this guy and his rather fringey podcast and blogs? I am thinking of AFDing it, but I thought maybe some of you might have ideas though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Have I heard of it? Yes. Is it notable? Doubtful. I don't think it's popped up on the radar of the WP:RS literature. Or, at least, I can't find any sources. jps (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Up for AFD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I see I missed the AFD. Let me just say in this case the system has made wrong decision. Corbett works with Sibel Edmonds. I don't expect a response. GangofOne (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You can always ask for a WP:DRV or ask the deleting administrator to userfy a copy of the article if you think you can bring it up to a standard where it would pass the problems outlined at the AfD. jps (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake - "but he is a biologist" again

Viewers of this board may be interested in the latest attempt to shoehorn "biologist" into the lead as the primary descriptor of the purveyor of "telepathic dogs" . feel free to join the conversation at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a proposal on the talkpage about changing some of the text related to Sheldrake's background. jps (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Law of One (The Ra Material)

• The Law of One (The Ra Material) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anyone know if this nonsense is covered in good sources anywhere? My searches are drawing a blank ... wonder if another (!) trip to AfD may be in order? Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The last AfD closed more than a year ago due to the grumpiness of the administrators rather than taking seriously the complaints of those who think this work is probably too obscure to deserve a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Any new AfD nomination would have to explain this situation clearly. jps (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No surprise that Alexbrn's searches drew blank, as he was also objecting the inclusion of a book's wikipedia link in Roswell UFO incident article. Salimfadley did the job: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_(The_Ra_Material) Logos (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the editors who commented on the 3rd mentioned that new sources had been found to attest to the notability of this subject. Does anybody know which sources he/she might have been referring to? From what I can tell all of the sources in this article are either fringe/occult sites of no particular importance or alternatively are primary sources (e.g. google books links) which can attest to the content of the book but not it's importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Some users tend to manipulate WP:Fringe guideline to overrule other primary policies like WP:Verify and WP:NBOOK primary policy WP:VERIFY and the guideline WP:NBOOK. This behaviour's one of reflections is even about the article Fringe theory. It's kind of an obsession; because even though "Fringe theory" concept has no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, there are plenty of its dedicated "protectors" in wikipedia. jps was quite honest about that in the past: [23] Logos (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably better to WP:FOC than start spouting off about "some users". And yes, WP:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (The Ra Material) is now open for business. Still wondering if this stuff has been discussed in any respectable sources to allow us to write something neutral ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Bringing "some users" past key issues into the scene does not violate WP:FOC. It's like probing the judgemental abilities of an adminship candidate. If an editor is not able to evaluate the issues neutrally and demonstrating some real bias, then other editors may need to know it. Logos (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In general opening an argument by asserting, in essence, that one has the fine judgement that one's opponents lack, is fairly weak. Back to the point: do these supposed strong sources mentioned in prior AfD's actually exist? If so where are they? Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Are we in deletion discussion? Or in FT noticeboard? They are mentioned in previous deletion discussions and in talk page archives of the article. Logos (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We are in both places at once. I did look over the prior discussions and nothing stood out as being a really strong source. Indulge me: what's the very best one that was mentioned in your view? Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's your problem, you're not systematic; you pour all wp policies & guidelines into the pot and come up only with the miracoulous WP:FRINGE. Let's get back to the basics then;

1-Trivial coverage of a topic/book in independent, reliable, third-party sources warrants a stub in wikipedia.

2-For a topic to be able to grow past a stub/summary, there should be some extended non-trivial coverage in at least 1 independent, reliable, third-party source.

3-For neutrality, there should be some critical commentary about the topic in at least 1 independent, reliable, third-party source.

So, the law of one article/books satisfies clause 1 definitely; there are plenty of sources mentioning the law of one books briefly (i.e. trivial coverage). It doesn't matter whether those are new-agey, spiritualist, or "woo-woo" sources; the only prerequisite is "independent, reliable, third-party". Clause 2 is also satisfied by Kinney's article about the law of one books in Gnosis magazine. Some editors may argue that it's not enough. Then there are below sources;

Klimo, Jon (1987). Channeling: Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources. North Atlantic Books. p. 203. ISBN 9781556432484.

Wicherink, Jan (2008). "The law of One" (PDF). Souls of Distortion Awakening: A convergence of science and spirituality. Piramidions. pp. 193–197. ISBN 978-90-813047-2-6.

Hastings, Arthur. With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study of Channelingl. Holt Rinehart and Winston (March 1991). p. 60. ISBN 9780030471643.

Andrew Ross (1991). Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits. Verso. pp. 39–. ISBN 978-0-86091-567-6. Retrieved 6 February 2013.

Kinney's article contains some critics, therefore clause 3 is also satisfied. Finally, nearly all of the content in the law of one article are from mainly Kinney's article/commentary in Gnosis magazie. So, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH is also not violated. Logos (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I do recall that it was the Kinney article upon which the hat was hung. I'm not convinced that User:Logos is not somehow conflicted when it comes to this subject. jps (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny indeed; what can I do to convince you that I am not related to llresearch or authors of the the law of one books? Logos (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Jay Kinney in Gnosis Magazine is our supposed RS!? Holy mackerel, he just happened to be the owner, editor, and publisher of that magazine and is author of that piece, so it's effectively a WP:SPS as well as lacking WP:FRINDependence. The opinion that WP is currently carrying includes his writing "the system is worth at least a few minutes' attention for its sophisticated version of the general doctrine of higher worlds" which sounds like promotional bilge. Alexbrn (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Gnosis was a magazine and you say that it is self published? Have you forgotten the tinfoil on your head? Logos (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No I said Kinney's piece (cited by you) was, since he owned and edited the the magazine. Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not that clearcut with Gnosis case. Kinney may have started gnosis as some sort of self-publishing, but later on it seems that the Lumen Foundation became an established publisher within 3 years. Then Richard Smoley had become its managing director. WP:SPS refers to the definitions in Self-publishing. Logos (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

break

Wrong again; have I mentioned WP:FRINGE or WP:FRIND part of it in above clauses? No, WP:FRINGE or WP:FRIND are not governing guidelines/pieces with regards to this topic. It's like the difference between "roswell (ufo incident)" and "the day after roswell" articles. The law of one article is about the law of one books; we don't need some "fine works of scholarship"/"fine works of religious scholarship" to "examine the irrational nature" of the topic/books. Logos (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact, the article we have now is not really about books at all, it about the content of those books (which are available outside the books), the "general doctrine of higher worlds", aliens and the like. It's a WP:COATRACK on the books, which themselves are not notable either. Unless we can find some decent sources I think this will need deleting. Alexbrn (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So, how does an article about a book should look like? It should contain some summary of the content also. Logos (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Then you can explain how the subject passes WP:BK if that's the angle you're taking. That's actually a much more stringent notability guideline. Self-published books such as this one essentially never pass. jps (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-published?? You were one of the contributors to this article; you should have realised it's being the opposite before. The books were published by Schiffer Publishing. Logos (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but the waters were sufficiently muddied at previous AfDs by long screeds such as the above to prevent careful analysis by the closing administrator. The newbie mistake of immediately renominating was swatted down from on high. jps (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You're under no obligation to convince me of anything. However, I have noticed how much of a champion you are of this particular article which is very, very strange. You also seem prone to ownership as seen in your attack (and violation of WP:OUTING) of an IP on the article page. jps (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you checked that IP user's edits? Those edits would eventually turn the article into a big-fat nonsense (just like in the past), and as a result, it would be deleted easily. That IP user didn't seem to have the minimum required knowledge of wp policies & guidelines. What would you do; adopt? Logos (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the IP wasn't problematic. I'm saying that you seem to have a peculiar attachment to the article (just look at your userpage!) and you definitely violated WP:OUTING which is a pretty big sin here at Wikipedia. Don't worry, I won't be reporting you. jps (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a big sin in wp to have a peculiar attachment to the article; in the end I started editing wp just to create that law of one article. Sure it may seem to you as problematic, but don't worry I am not, or wouldn't be, offended. Maybe you should report me, so that official procedures may reveal the truth; that IP user also seems to have been editing only the law of one article. In fact, that user may have the real COI issue. Logos (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you want to be reported. From what I'm seeing the current arbcom will speedily hand down a site ban to any editor who has done anything that looks like WP:OUTING. Is the article covered by WP:ACDS? Alexbrn (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I won't take this as some kind of threat. Logos (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think technically the article would be under discretionary sanctions, but I don't think that's relevant to the WP:OUTING issues. If you're concerned about it, WP:AN or WP:ANI is probably the place where this would be properly dealt with. Maybe. But dramaboards often result in more heat than light. jps (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be concerned about the WP:SPA nature of your account, but in other venues you actually do some good contributions. I don't know why you are so attached to this particular book, but you have been one of the most successful dedicated users at keeping this material in Wikipedia that I have seen. For that alone you should probably be given some sort of award. jps (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPA is just another essay, and you're exaggerating my dedication. When you look at the history of the law of one article, you will see that I was stalled after the deletion of the 1st article (ra (channeled entity)). Then some guys created the article with some other name, and my contribution was limited, I was only participating in deletion discussions. As you see, it's not only me who may be considered as peculiarly attached to these books. So, even if it is deleted, most probably somebody will recreate it: [24] [25] Logos (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see the alarm gets rung in an online forum dedicated to evangelizing this stuff on the web. Sigh. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you didn't check the dates of those posts; the last post was on 17th of october. Alarm may not get rung in those forums just the same time as it gets rung in antifringe task force/front. Sigh. Logos (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations

Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is heavily reliant on a single source for information about the exam contents, which comes from the naturopathic organization which administers the exam (www.nabne.org). Can we verify claims by a naturopathic organization on what it puts on its own licensing exams? Since this is a known WP:FRINGE topic, I am not sure how to proceed. The article seems to give undo prominence to the content of the exam. A while back, I was able to find third-party sources discussing the exam, but they do not provide detail of its contents because the exam seems to be unavailable for external review. I reflected this situation in the section "Performance and quality," but perhaps that is not the right place for this info either. Delta13C (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

My short answer is that I think the material and sourcing is fine per WP:PSTS. A longer answer is that this should all be organized differently. The main article should be North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners (NABNE), the organization that administers the exam. Material about their exam, the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX), should be contained within it. Given the number of governmental bodies that rely on the NABNE's administration of the NPLEX and mention one or the other or both on their official websites, I think NABNE/NPLEX is notable enough for inclusion. - Location (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Suicide of Vince Foster

Suicide of Vince Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It'd be appreciated if a 3rd opinion could stop by the Suicide of Vince Foster article & talk page. There's currently a dispute between me & @ScrapIronIV: there as to the reliability & relevance of certain sources, and whether a certain section should be kept and, if kept, where it should be placed. See talk page for details.

For those not familiar, there are conspiracy theories that Vince Foster was actually murderered, or that there was otherwise some kind of cover-up. The section in question has a source which attacks a Clinton ally as not certified for handwriting analysis related to George W. Bush's service in the National Guard, and another website which states as fact various beliefs of the cover-up camp. SnowFire (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you like me to add more sources? There are plenty. Scr★pIron^IV 19:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have responded to the dispute on the talk page. The bottom line is that this edit should be reverted. - Location (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A bit off-topic: It doesn't appear that any conspiracy theorists have yet made the connection that medical examiner James L. Luke was involved not only in the Vince Foster case but that of Dorothy Kilgallen, too. I've just tied the assassination of John F. Kennedy to the Clinton Body Count, so I'll start taking orders for my book once I figure out how H.W and W. are involved. You heard it here on Wikipedia first! - Location (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Bee pollen

Bee pollen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Proposed content:

Bee Pollen has been known to provide therapeutic, health benefits, and help with wound healing.

Abstract from the source:

Bee pollen is a valuable apitherapeutic product greatly appreciated by the natural medicine because of its potential medical and nutritional applications. It demonstrates a series of actions such as antifungal, antimicrobial, antiviral, anti-inflammatory, hepatoprotective, anticancer immunostimulating, and local analgesic. Its radical scavenging potential has also been reported. Beneficial properties of bee pollen and the validity for their therapeutic use in various pathological condition have been discussed in this study and with the currently known mechanisms, by which bee pollen modulates burn wound healing process.

I don't think the source should be used per MEDRS and FRINGE, but I'd like to hear from editors that are more familiar with such publications. Maybe RSN would be a better venue for discussion? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Properly given, the proposed source is this:

• Komosinska-Vassev K, Olczyk P, Kaźmierczak J, Mencner L, Olczyk K (2015). "Bee pollen: chemical composition and therapeutic a:pplication". Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015: 297425. doi:10.1155/2015/297425. PMC 4377380. PMID 25861358.

So, it's in EBCAM, pretty much the fringeist junk journal out there. I wouldn't touch that source with a bargepole. Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Edward Group

I'm concerned about this article Edward Group promoting a fringe advocate. It does not seem to be written from NPOV. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Delta13C (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the account who started this article was violating WP:SOAP. The mention from the New York Times seems to not speak to notability of the person, per se. I'm leaning toward AfD. jps (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Make sure it meets WP:BIO. If there are any sources that notice his fringe viewpoints, they should be included in the article. I'll try to set aside some time to look closer. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

All I could find is http://deltafarmpress.com/blog/quackery-serious-business-dr-group , which I don't have access to. --Ronz (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Since it is clearly a blog, we can disregard it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a clear WP:BLP violation to me. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Group --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

deltafarmpress.com appears to be a reliable source for farming information, and the author of the article is editor for the site, though appears to only contribute in a blog column. If the article survives AfD, I'll discuss it further as a potential source. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

2004 Mexican UFO incident

2004 Mexican UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What do you think? Should this be a stand-alone article?

jps (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It does not pass WP:EVENT and its various subsections. Given that there is some coverage, merge and redirect to UFO sightings in Mexico. - Location (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirected and merged to UFO sightings in Mexico. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted; should be discussed with wider participation. Logos (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think a redirect is the best approach for the reasons stated above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Uriella

Uriella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a biographical article about a living Swiss religious leader: The entire sprawling article is referenced to a single (German) source. Can anybody make sense of this apparent nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) --16:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

She leads the "Fiat Lux" UFO cult, but does not appear to be very notable even within the UFO bubble. Tha article is a coatrack for the cult, so the question is: is the Fiat Lux cult notable itself? The current article is obviously not suitable for WP whatever the answer to that question is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The article lacks academic sources, however there are a few: [26], [27], [28] so the single German source (www.relinfo.ch, is apparently something called "The Evangelical Unit" of the Reformed Churches of German-speaking Switzerland) could be removed and it could be cleaned up considerably. I would also move the article to Fiat Lux (religion), since the community appears to be more notable than the person (Uriella). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Following the move to Fiat Lux (religion), I've trimmed out the "Reformed Churches" sources, added RS sources to the article, and copyedited appropriately. This can be further expanded using the academic sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Keleman

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Keleman - appears to be a non-notable chiropractor. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Rulon C. Allred - Mormon and Chiropractor w/ sources written by his family members

Rulon C. Allred: This article is entirely references using works written by the subject's family members (daughter and niece). I placed appropriate tags, but I think this article needs to be looked at more closely. The subject was a chiropractor and mormon, who might be notable if there are more reliable sources for verification. Delta13C (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The guy is rather famous for starting a cult. jps (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

World Wireless System

Need help at World Wireless System. This article is about Nikola Tesla's proposed wireless power scheme to transmit electric power long distances through the air, culminating in his unsuccessful Wardenclyffe Tower power transmitter.

Recently there seems to be repeated efforts [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] to reinsert WP:FRINGE theories, noted in this previous Noticeboard complaint [34], which were previously cleared out of the article. Based on WP:OR WP:pseudoscience interpretations of Tesla's debunked 100 year old claims, they say Tesla actually achieved wireless power transmission.

Would like outside editors, particularly those that have some experience with Tesla, to look at future edits. Please put it on your watchlists. Considering how much attention Tesla gets in the WP:FRINGE movement, it is important to get his articles right. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Had a look at the userpage of one of the editors to his page : GLPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That's got to be nearly the longest userpage I've ever seen. jps (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Fringe advocacy over at Talk:Bach_flower_remedies

You may wish to monitor this talk page. One relativly new user seems to be using the talk pages to promote a fringe POV. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of an alt med journal in Adrenal fatigue

The reliability and WP:WEIGHT of use of an alt med journal article written by alt med practitioners in describing what actually happens with adrenal glands is being discussed on the talk page of adrenal fatigue, here. Further input welcome. Yobol (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex Tsakiris

Is this guy notable enough to be on Wikipedia? I had to removed some terrible sources. JuliaHunter (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he is notable enough: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Tsakiris. jps (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Myofascial release

• Myofascial release (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Got an IP determined to remove the "slander" (i.e. well-sourced skepticism) from the article. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, I pruned out some of the in-universe cruft. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Antivaxer on the loose

The edits and comments made by Realskeptic (talk · contribs) need watching. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

See here for background, including diffs showing their M.O. (IMHO, these edits speak volumes) This user has wasted a lot of people's time on several talk pages. I'm rather surprised he or she hasn't been indeffed. You can look at their talk page history to see all of the warnings (since removed and not in the talk page archive), including a discretionary sanction warning by EdJohnston. That was removed, calling it a threat. APK whisper in my ear 09:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think that a topic ban from vaccination might be justified under WP:ARBPS, consider making a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like someone has started a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. APK whisper in my ear 06:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We can all rest easy, he/she has been topic banned. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Anthroposophic medicine again

In addition to the usual, we've got some new WP:SPAs (possible WP:SOCKs?) advocating changes to the article to big up claims about Steiner's mistletoe therapy. Could do with vigilance from fringe/medical-savvy editors. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note this is now also an issue at the Viscum album (Mistletoe) article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Fringe topics in management theory

User:PHCleverley appears to be trying to create a fringe nexus around Corporate Brain (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Brain). He's been trying to shoehorn references to this bizarre concept into a number of unrelated articles. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all and User:Salimfadhle that's a little unfair in my opinion talk. The notice for improvement indicated that to improve it, we should introduce links to the page from other relevant pages which is what I did and I told you which ones when I replied on Talk. There are several existing Wikipedia articles that mention the corporate brain and other analogues and metaphors such as organizational memory and corporate amnesia. So its certainly not a bizarre new concept to Wikipedia articles. You say they are all unrelated as a concept and you are of course entitled to your opinion. Not sure if you have read the article recently but some of your feedback has been well taken and used to develop it further, supported by more peer reviewed research and practitioner literature from a variety of authors. Constructive criticism welcomed on how it can be improved. PHCleverley (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Techniques to rejuvenate the human body and stop aging"

Connoisseurs of fringe may by interested in a new WP:WALLEDGARDEN that is being uncovered at WT:MED#Abundant primary sources in Regeneration in humans (thanks to CFCF for the discovery). Probably a lot to be done in this topic area ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Life extension related topics seem to have these kind of problems frequently. There was an Arbcom case about longevity, this seems to be a similar issue in a similar topic area.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The life extension subculture crosses over with the transhumanist subculture (e.g. de Grey) and has a similar culture of extensive self-citation out in the wider world as well as on Wikipedia. c.f. past discussion on this board - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a veritable walled garden, and it has been a problem on Wikipedia for a very long time. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Input requested on several fringe-y articles nominated for deletion

I thought readers of this noticeboard would be interested in the following articles relating to fringe subjects that are nominated for deletion:

• WP:Articles_for_deletion/William_Esser Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Roni_DeLuz Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/California_Bureau_of_Naturopathic_Medicine Redirected
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Gordy_Ainsleigh Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Makaʻala_Yates Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Tomshack Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/David_Singer_(chiropractor) Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Wayne_Rhodes Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Reed_(chiropractor) Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Parker_(chiropractor) Deleted

What about Parker University? Possibly also an AFD candidate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Leistner_(2nd_nomination) Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Morningstar Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Clarence_Gonstead Deleted
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Auerbach Deleted

Marked off the closed ones. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Henry Lindlahr

Kept at AfD basically on the presumption the (uncited) claim the book was influential was accurate, and the usual google search finds something that might be a source. Is this accurate? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Conspiracy theory

There is a discussion at the Talk page for Conspiracy theory [35] that could use some input, and I think editors here would be particularly interested. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are periodic efforts to add material to the article to reflect a POV that is currently making the rounds in fringe circles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made some recent revisions to a section that was cherry-picking quotes to support the above fringe view and using badly misrepresented sources. Let's hope it sticks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-peer-reviewed paper used as sole source for two paragraphs of empirical content

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

---

At Talk:Genetically_modified_fish#Unreliable_source.3F a discussion has occurred where an editor User:DrChrissy with known WP:OWN problems is insisting their preferred content is okay.

The controversy is that the following source is used as the sole citation for two paragraphs that make a variety of empirical claims about the characteristics of genetically engineered fish:

• Kirkden, R. & Broom, D.M. (2012). "Welfare of genetically modified and cloned animals used for food" (PDF). Retrieved November 30, 2015.

The source in question is a report that apparently did not receive peer review and was "commissioned by Compassion in World Farming and made possible by a grant from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)." This is dubious at best. I suggest either finding a new source for the content that it footnotes or removing the content altogether.

The person who wrote the content and included the source refuses to accept that peer-review is necessary for the content, in spite of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Cross-posted to WP:RSN.

jps (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is this being posted to this noticeboard and WP:RSN? Surely this is forum shopping?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Forum shopping is trying venues in sequence until the desired result is achieved; sometimes it's desirable to post to noticeboard in parallel when an issue straddles both their areas of concern, though in such cases I prefer if it's indicated which NB should "host" the discussion, otherwise it can get split. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's generally considered OK to reference an issue on multiple noticeboards as long as the issue is relevant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It would seem fine to me if the source was used with attribution. Not so fine to be using it to make claims in WP's voice though. And even with attribution weight would always be a consideration particularly due to the source being funded by a special interest group. I would think there would be better sources out there though. Sources published in peer-reviewed journals. Capeo (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much JPS, as the Doc is just cocking a snoop at Arbcom and his impending ban from GMO topics. He's doing the same thing elsewhere. Quite why he thinks this sort of thing is acceptable I cannot fathom. I think the best strategy, since ArbCom hasn't been able to pull its finger out, is to ignore any damage he does in the topic until the ban comes into force, then tidy up. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment It could be used with attribution, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Request Would the OP please indicate why they have posted this on the "Fringe" noticeboard. What aspects of the disputed content are "fringe"? Oh, I also think it is a rather a strategic shot-in-the-foot to spuriously state that I have "known WP:OWN problems".DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the fringe theory that the source supposedly advocates? TFD (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There are definitely a lot of fringe theories surrounding "concerns" over genetic engineering. This is broadly related. jps (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly not answering the question. What theory in the disputed content are you suggesting is "fringe"?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I can see why the topic ban is passing unopposed, you have not learned a thing. Nobody is obliged to justify every action to your personal satisfaction: if someone gives an explanation and you disagree, then simply say "I disagree" - and then drop it. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Very good. I await with great anticipation your following of the second part of my advice. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I am repeating the question that I and others have asked you previously but you have not yet satisfactorily answered. Why have you posted this thread to the Fringe Discussion board? The first paragraph you contest is content relating to abnormalities caused by the over-expression of growth hormone. This is the mainstream authors' expert opinion of multiple papers published in mainstream journals. The second paragraph I can quote fully - "In studies on the cloning of fish, a proportion of the offspring are haploid and non-viable, the rate of hatching is decreased, and a substantial proportion of hatchlings are deformed (12 - 48%)." This is again a review summary of articles published in mainstream scientific journals.

Which of these is a "fringe" theory? An answer would be very much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Answered above. jps (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Karyn Calabrese

The article Karyn Calabrese seems to be barely squeaking by WP:BLP because of the subject's popularity as a raw foodist and restaurateur in Chicago, which to me appears to be giving undue significance to FRINGE. Most of the sources in the article are about her restaurants/diets or come from unreliable sources. There is one solid Chicago Tribune article. Help requested. Delta13C (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed it in March 2014, and trimmed out some trivia today. There's been little progress in that time. BLP applies, so any contentious material that is poorly sourced or unsourced should be removed outright. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonstead technique

Nomination of what appears to be a meaningless chiropractic buzzword; perhaps the article is salvageable, but one rather needs to be able to define a term before an article on it becomes appropriate, surely. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hale Boggs

For monitoring: Congressmen Hale Boggs (a member of the Warren Commission) and Nick Begich are presumed to have died in a plane crash in Alaska in 1972. Although Boggs was a critic of the single-bullet theory, he did not dispute that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Still, the conspiracy-minded suggest he was killed because of his rejection of the SBT. Per Talk:Hale Boggs, a new version of this theory based on a primary source, synth of secondary sources, and an alternative weekly has made its way into the article. (diff) - Location (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Raw feeding

Even worse than Raw foodism in many ways. So, let's first discuss: Should this be its own article, or should we merge? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a different subject, though it's much the same woo - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in Osteopathy

Some questions about terminology and sourcing for the pseudoscientific component of osteopathy (the things collectively called OMT or Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment). More eyes from fringe-savvy editors welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Stainless steel soap

I am trying to expand our article on Stainless steel soap, but am having trouble finding any reliable sources that test for the alleged effect. It really smells like something somewhere between pseudoscience and outright fraud ("are you bothered by the smell of pseudoscience? Try our stainless steel soap! Removes the stink of bunk, flim-flam and even snake oil in seconds!!") but I would really like to be able to cite the results of a double blind test. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Could we use some sort of powdered stainless steel as an alternative to detergent in our washing machines? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Feldenkrais Method

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

An editor seems unhappy with the inclusion of the recently-published Australian report recommending against insurance cover for 17 altmed practices (of which the Feldenkrais Method was one). More generally the article is a bit bamboozling (from the lede: "Feldenkrais aims were to improve upon previously established neural network patterns... engendering a clearer, more efficient self image and use of self"). Could uses eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

#SleepOnIt

John Douillard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This alt med practitioner is telling everyone to sleep on their left side because it's "healthier". I notice that his biography here at Wikipedia reads like a snowjob. Can we get some improvement? Or is that impossible?

jps (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Lying left-side down has been shown to reduce recumbent esophageal acid exposure which in turn reduces Gastroesophageal reflux disease and risk of Barrett's esophagus Joshgreene (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

References

But that is not a WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology isn't WP:MEDRS? Joshgreene (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources (such as the RCT) aren't, no. We need reviews, meta-analyses, etc. from journals. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't even something mentioned in the biography that needs citation, I only defend the practice because there is research on it and it was the only objection raised about the person.

Related articles

Related to the above, Joshgreene (talk · contribs) has written a number of articles which may be of dubious notability related to ayurveda:

• Abhyangha
• Association of Ayurvedic Professionals of North America
• Ayurvedic Institute
• California Association of Ayurvedic Medicine
• California College of Ayurveda
• Churna
• Devi Ma Kunja
• Dinacharya
• Dinacharya Institute
• Mount Madonna Institute
• National Ayurvedic Medical Association
• Sarita Shrestha
• Svedana
• Vasant Lad

jps (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the facts or information of an article by all means please raise them, otherwise WP:AGF and stop your POV crusading. Joshgreene (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have an issue with whether these articles all pass WP:NFRINGE. I think many do not. Many appear to be soapboxes for pseudoscience. jps (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasant Lad. jps (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand where the line is being drawn between being a traditional/alternative medicine and not being notable. Authors like Vasant Lad, accuracy aside, are certainly well known and frequently used within the notable Ayurvedic community. I can name accredited universities that assign his textbooks including Loyola Marymount University. I mean, Dr. Oz gets a page. It's just not a flattering page. I assume some of these subjects might not be notable, but is all of ayurveda being dismissed as a fringe topic instead of being labeled as a traditional medicine of whatever effectiveness? Is the same thing happening to all the massage pages and traditional chinese medicine? Putting skepticism on the pages is one thing, but removing a page like abhyanga is as ridiculous as removing blood letting. It doesn't matter if it works. If people have been doing it for hundreds of years it should get an entry, to say nothing of the balanced way that article should be written. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The idea is that there needs to be independent sources for us to assess notability. The problem with ideas that are not accepted by the mainstream is that the subjects tend to form WP:Walled gardens that are impenetrable to normal sourcing standards. It is hard to judge whether a given Ayurvedic practitioner or organization is notable until some who isn't an Ayurvedic practitioner references them in a serious way. Those are the kinds of sources that speak to notability. This serves an important purpose. If we just accepted the citation palm greasing that can occur with fringe topics, then Wikipedia would be filled with credulously written text based on poor sourcing.

The question we need to answer is, "Where are the sources?" In terms of Vasant Lad, I found none from people who were not Ayurveda true believers, but I'm willing to be convinced that there are sources out there which do allow us accordance with WP:FRIND and WP:BLPFRINGE. jps (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is astral projection pseudoscience?

• Astral projection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some discussion on this on the Talk page. Input from wise fringe-savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think even psuedoscience gives it a credibility it doesn't deserve. Astrology is pseudoscience. Astral projection is... a 9th level spell in dungeons and dragons. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

True believers want to weasel their way out of being a pseudoscience on that article. 03:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually: non-believers were merely defending the page from an inaccurate label. Only specific contexts make this pseudoscientific. It is a practice, a belief, and a psychological phenomenon that predates science by centuries. Only very limited contexts even refer to it in a scientific manner. There is a big difference between a prescientific belief not based on empiricism and a pseudoscience. Studies of it and certain applications can be pseudoscientific without making it a pseudoscience. Those who wished to label it as "a pseudoscience" were unable to find a single reliable source that took the claim that far without making their own inferencial conclusions. Sticking with dictionary definitions: being fringe and unscientific is not the same as being pseudoscientific. The distinction may seem small, but this is an encyclopedia. To exceed the definitions of our sources is patently dishonest. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The contexts where scientific claims were made which can be identified as pseudoscientific are clearly laid out in the sources and in the article. People may have good faith disagreements over whether that means we should say that the subject is a pseudoscience full stop or whether we should instead try to be more careful in our wording. As it is, the claims are so outrageous that they tend to be made almost exclusively today by people who accommodate a pseudoscientific outlook when arguing in favor of their belief in astral projection. As such, it is not dishonest to identify the subject as being pseudoscientific and it seems that you don't have a problem with its description as such either, so your argument here seems a bit peculiar. jps (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I was merely objecting to the one unsigned and inaccurate description of the dispute above. Being called 'a believer' which I am not and accused of 'weaseling out' of being a pseudoscience. I felt the small-minded obligation to set the record straight. Especially when it looked like an attempt to rally editors to a fight by misinforming them and unsettling the debate. A debate that, as we agree, is well enough settled.

But look at how many 'weasel words' you need to justify the phrasing of pseudoscience 'full stop': "they tend to be made almost exclusively today by people who accommodate a pseudoscientific outlook when arguing in favor of their belief." That's what I mean when I say it's only under certain conditions that the title applies.

If the article only described a modern movement of people making science based claims I would agree that it makes sense to call it a pseudoscience. But as the article stands, it goes into a long history of mysticism that does not read well with the skeptical lense anymore than the pages on Jesus or Krishna would. The fact is that historical yogic texts explore the subject extensively as well as taoist texts and in that context it is a piece of a belief system. And when dealing with spiritual beliefs it becomes unduly patronizing and unencyclopedic to sum it up terms like pseudoscience. Science minded people don't buy into any spirit based claims and generally don't need the disclaimer put everywhere spirits are mentioned. It's more that a person claiming he can remote view things with astral projection that warrants a skeptic to point out "no he can't". So again, I believe we agree that the majority of the subtopics on that page are pseudoscience. Just not all the topics on the page are suited to that interpretive lense. Hence the qualifying context or ending "tific".

You can believe in ghosts, but it's the guys trying to film and measure ghosts who practice pseudoscience. The guy who thinks his house is haunted is just superstitious. Ghosts aren't pseudoscience, but the Ghost Hunters practice pseudoscience.

And remember: in addition to being a belief, it is also an experiential phenomenon. That is to say, like an acid trip, you can experience it and fully realize it was in your head. Saying you saw a pegasus while hallucinating isn't a scientific claim. You can still be aware that wasn't a pegasus but that you 'saw' one.

The belief aspect extends to some degree even to astrology and alchemy as well. I don't believe in them, but a large part of them exist inseparably tangled within historic belief systems. To such a degree that the terminology of alchemy becomes identical to the terminology of spiritual perfection in taoism (the outer and inner elixers). Usually saying they drank mercury and died is adequate to express that alchemy didn't lead to immortality without the word pseudoscience being a useful elaboration. To say they can't actually make gold or tell the future doesn't require the word pseudoscience, per se, especially when talking about people who didn't practice modern science. But there are plenty of contexts within astrology and alchemy where it is highly appropriate to call out pseudoscience. Especially with modern day 'medicine-men' scamming people or even deluding themselves. This is where the term fits like a glove. It was meant for calling out harmful quackery like phrenology, psychic surgery, and eugenics. Territory where these traditional practices are sometimes taken.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

An encyclopedia needs to balance precision with readability and effective conveyance of information. Nuance is the fact of life, but it does us no good to ignore the basic points in favor of what if and minor exceptions. "Astral projection", as a term, is basically the provenance of pseudoscientific supporters. Are there exceptions? Yes. But the exceptions do not the rule make and when describing a subject on Wikipedia it isn't good to dwell on exceptions when trying to adhere to WP:SUMMARY-style. I am reminded of the story from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the entry on "Earth" is changed from "Harmless" to "Mostly Harmless".

No doubt that people sometimes describe acid trips as "astral projection", for example. However, this to me does not detract from the point that the majority of sources we have couch the specific "astral projection" term in the context of pseudoscientific arguments. I think your comparison to alchemy is apt, and I would argue that most of the sources identify the pseudoscience of astral projection in similar regards.

jps (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) starts by stating that "It is often triggered after the patient has received a viral infection or vaccination". Later, we find that "The only vaccine proven to induce ADEM is the Semple form of the rabies vaccine" but that "Large scale epidemiological studies (e.g., of MMR vaccine or smallpox vaccine) do not show increased risk of ADEM following vaccination". In other words, the call-out in the lede appears to be an antivax trope. Now guess who bacame a Warrior for Scientific Truth after his brother got this "after" a vaccine? Gilles-Eric Séralini, darling of the anti-science brigade. I think a careful review of tihs article is in order. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your source that Sersalini became a warrior for scientific truth after his brother got it (using your words)? Notice that you should not use your own synthesis, also you should bother and read the talk page. This factoid you mentioned here was only part of the article because Jytdog readded it after an IP removed it. prokaryotes (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not article space, I am free to state things how I like. I don't care who added it, the phrasing was tendentious as it implied a causal link for which there is no credible evidence. The vaccine encepahlomyelitis trope is an anti-vax trope and should not eb included without substantial analytical sources. As a factoid, it adds nothing to the article anyway. And I do encourage others to look at the article because it relies far too heavily on Séralini's own work. X published a paper claiming Y, source, X's paper claiming Y, is barely acceptable when the claim is uncontroversial. When it's controversial and widely disputed, we don't include it without reliable independent secondary sources to establish the significance and context, per absolutely standard Wikipedia practice. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

N.b. Prokaryotes is community banned from all articles related to vaccination. [36]. jps (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra (yet) again

I wondered why there'd been an upsurge of NNPOV edits at Deepak Chopra and sure enough:

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-castle/wikipedia-deepak-chopra-i_b_8726130.html

The highlight is the argument for the respectability of the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience journal, just after (as it happens) Frontiers Media has been added to Jeffrey Beall's list of potential predatory open access publishers. There's other silliness beside. As always, fringe-savvy editors are encouraged to keep an eye out ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice timing. If only there was some recent scientific research putting Chopra's pseudo-profound bullshit into some sort of context. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the Huffpost article at all? I find it troubling that you generalise Chopra's work as pseudo-profound bullshit. prokaryotes (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very much biased for the scientific mainstream. Orthodox skeptics love the scientific mainstream (scientific orthodoxy, if you wish). So, the article on Chopra criticizes him from going very, very far from scientific orthodoxy. The difference between Einstein and Chopra is that Einstein very much designed our current scientific orthodoxy, so he has successfully produced a paradigm change. Chopra's intention is indeed to produce a paradigm change, but all he could reach in this respect is peddling pseudoscience. I don't know exactly what Chopra did before turning to New Age, but there is a quote from The Adventure of the Empty house by Conan Doyle: "There are some trees, Watson, which grow to a certain height and then suddenly develop some unsightly eccentricity. You will often see it in humans." Source of the quote: Dutch Journal Against Quackery, Dec. 2015, p. 39. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is biased towards the mainstream, and in matters of scientific inquiry we follow the scientific consensus. This is by design.

It's a singular fact that in almost any debate, references to "paradigm shifts" correlate very strongly with advocacy of ideas that are refuted by science. No "paradigm shift" will ever render the statement "consciousness is nonlocal" as anything other than bullshit. Murray Gell-Mann even coined a term for this kind of thing: quantum flapdoodle. I have no problem with mystics. I greatly admire the Dalai Lama. I do have a problem with people who try to pretend that new-age mysticism is some kind of scientific profundity and that they have arcane knowledge that real scientists who study the real wonders of the universe, somehow do not have. Science is hard, bullshit is easy. Why bother with the hard stuff if you can get away with bullshit instead? Guy (Help!) 17:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit, Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6, November 2015, pp. 5 49–563

BullRangifer (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden

Anyone familiar with this subject? This is a GA that seems to have a fringe theory described in the lead (third paragraph) without any mention of opposing viewpoints. I'd normally remove it by default, but it looks like it was already discussed on the talk page and was ultimately kept. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Federation of German Scientists

• Federation of German Scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Actually, this is really about Séralini again. He was given an award by this body and there is some dispute about how this fact should be neutrally presented taking into account the WP:FRINGE aspects in play. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes seems to me to be pretty much the only one who does not want to include reliable independent secondary sources discussing the award, but instead cite only the primary source, which very obviously has a disputed take on the facts. Your edits are well supported on Talk, his are not. I encourage anybody who's interested to review the article's edit history and judge for themselves. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking to no avail, but has the aspect of awards given to a fringe BLP subject been disscused either here or at the guideline talk page? I seem to recall some large conversation on it at least (maybe related to climate change deniers), but the subject is escaping me. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As with all awards, the questions for inclusion are (a) whether the award is notable, and (b) whether there is a reliable source showing that the award was given. The subject's involvement with non-mainstream viewpoints should have no bearing on this inclusion criterea.Dialectric (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue I'm getting at is when fringe BLPs have awards for their fringe advocacy. Including awards for non-mainstream viewpoints can become undue weight by validating the viewpoint, which is why care is required. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Socionics

• Socionics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Sounderk deletes characterisation and critics from the article about fringe theory of socionics: 1 (Russian Academy of Natural Sciences is a famous pseudscientific society in Russia), 2, 3. If you check contributions, it is clear that he/she is an one-purpose-account, presumably from International institute of socionics (fringe organisation developing socionics in Ukraine)—as the references to «hundreds and thousands of scientific papers on socionics» (published mainly by this institution) and to «outdated critics» (connected to very rare discussions of the socionics in respectable scientific journals, especially by psychologists) are very typical for people from this organization. You can check it in the discussion about socionics in Russian WP (sorry, in Russian). --Melirius (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

After administrator’s explaining Guy (Help!) I am not going to delete this criticism. But I want to elaborate my point of view on these controversial changes. This is a mistake or a selective presentation of sources. 1. Among 2500 academic sources Melirius found only 5 you can some any critical material about socionics. He put them at the very first part of the article. But first - it's just a personal web - blog. 2 source - a philosophers: Monastyrsky and Mineev, who are neither psychologists nor sociologists. But a number of other philosophers have a positive opinion of socionics. Monastyrsky himself proposes to pay attention to "the concept of socionics type". Also in the book of the philosopher Meneev, the term "socionics" is used only once (!) without any reference and analysis. 4 - one phrase: prof. Shmelev does not writes about Socionics, but about "authors of Socionics", because it is a review of the book about the MBTI. 5. Prof. Bogomaz worked on socionics and even his own socionics test. Therefore, he did not criticize socionics at all. When Melirius writes "Prof. S.A. Bogomaz state that there were a huge flow of psuedoscientific-popular, largely too enthusiastic publications in the field, that damages socionics in the eyes of psychological society of Russia". Melirius ignores that Bogomaz wrote this back in 2000, with reference to his own 1995 paper. Thus, this is not the secondary source, but the primary one. And now, in 2015, that information is just out of date! But Melirius didn’t write that Prof. Bogomaz gave his assessment of the works of other authors of socionics as a secondary source: "At the same time Prof. S.A. Bogomaz considers the socionic typology as an version of post-Jung typology and believes that on a number of criteria it is more perspective than the American version (MBTI) for the study of the differences between people, because it expands the volume of the typological features and offers an opportunity to form various typological groups with different motivations, attitudes, temperament, perception of information and thinking styles. It is also important the existence of preconditions to study intertype relations, that are substantially not developed within MBTI. S.A. Bogomaz thinks that the creation of the theory of intertype relationships is undoubtedly contribution of A.Augustinavichiute to the development of Jung typologies " 6. Thus, such "criticism" is very questionable and simply incorrect. At the same time socionics is taught in more than 150 public universities either as a separate discipline, or as part of other disciplines and is used in aviation and aerospace, sport pedagogy, management and other fields. 7. I wrote that that it was not suitable especially for the beginning of the article. We need to create a separate section of "criticism" at the end of the article, as is customary in other articles of Wikipedia. But the criticism should be constructive, valid and correct.--Sounderk (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to note here that the account Sounderk was registered three days ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Living Ethics

I think Living Ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is WP:FRINGE but I can't rightly say because the article itself reads to me as gobbledegook. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Ethics. jps (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions now active on GMO-related pages

I am posting this here so others don't get caught in the same trap I did:

jps (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Raw foodism

Terrible, terrible article, large parts of it need gutted. Includes such lovely text as:

“ Demand for unpasteurized, or raw, milk is growing among consumers concerned about chemicals, hormones, and drugs in milk.[123] Some oppose pasteurization on the grounds that - in their view - it impairs the quality of milk by denaturing enzymes and proteins, and killing beneficial bacteria.[124] According to the FDA, some of the health benefits claimed by some raw milk advocates do not exist.[125]

Raw dairy advocates have claimed that government agencies are heavily biased against raw dairy, providing incomplete facts or erroneous statistics.

[End of section]

”

It's a terrible article. I'll be slowly gutting it of the worst claims over the next few days, but could use a hand. It's one of those highly cherry-picked articles, where every bit of evidence of any effect of cooking that's negative is quoted, but none of the evidence against raw food is, so it requires a lot of nuke and pave. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I notice the very first reference in the article says "The raw food diet is based on the belief by some alternative medicine practitioners that the most healthful food for the body is uncooked." That overriding alternative medicine influence doesn't get a mention in the article. Would like to help with the balance of this article can make only fleeting visits to Wiki because of real life commitments. Moriori (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. In July 2014 [37] I wrote, "Looks to me the problem is a combination of poor sources (WP:MEDRS should be followed and is not), selective sourcing to give undue weight to certain points of view, simply ignoring related topics (eg Antinutrient), and the organization of the material (especially "Common beliefs", "Research", "Controversies")." We've made little progress since. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I made a start. It quickly became clear that the research section especially of the article was not only cherrypicked, but also misrepresenting studies, mentioning only the conclusions favourable to raw foodism from each, in a kind f Gish gallop of bad cites. I trimmed it down severely, and added a couple buried studies. I suspect a lot of sources are badly misrepreseted still; but I made a start at getting it to a manageable level. Throughout the rest of the article, there were numerous bad sources - I think I remember a Natural News cite - and I've been cutting those on sight. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm finding six main types of problems:

1. Cherrypicking, Pt. 1: Quoting any and all studies on the dangers of cooking, without regard to whether they show raw food is better, or if they're representative of research. Or sometimes when the report itself notes it conflicts with the mainstream view.
2. Synthesis: E.g. E.g. quoting talk of trace amounts of trans fats created in cooking, followed by a study talking about the dangers of trans fats in large quantities.
3. Cherrypicking, Pt. 2: Quoting only the parts of studies that support raw food, even when the study as a whole is ambiguous or negative.
4. Outright misleading presentations: E.g. a report on the smog cloud over Asia, caused primarily by dirty cooking fires, acting to encourage global warming was used to categorically say that cooking causes global warming.
5. Order of presentation - Putting all the mainstream points right at the end of the article, after pages and pages of advocacy.
6. Bad sources: Advocacy sources being used to talk science.

I've begun to fix these, but a big part of that is just cutting material. Can people watchlist this, please? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The section on food poisoning is the weirdest alarmism. The dangers of eating a banana, I venture to assert, are low. Every normal healthy diet includes raw foods, and that section, talking about contamination of lettuce, spinach etc., confuses the normal eating of raw foods with a diet based exclusively on raw foods. They are very different things. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Good point. I've cut it down to things not commonly eaten raw. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

... and now there's blowback[38] at raw foodism. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercharge Me and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days (2nd nomination)

Both of these films appear to have minimal coverage - a couple press-release-ish articles, and that's it. I'm going through the Books and Films part of Template:Veganism and vegetarianism; most are, at least, notable, whatever their other issues, but for some, the best you can say is they exist, really.

I suspect there's going to be a few more of this type, but I want to carefully research each of them first. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Carnism

While the basic concept underlying it - ethics of vegetarianism - isn't fringe, "Carnism" as a term and philosophical view has one proponent, Melanie Joy and one main source, her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. The article is a horrendous example of WP:SYNTH, consisting of points sourced to the book coupled with sources not talking about carnism that agree or support the points made. See Talk:Why_We_Love_Dogs,_Eat_Pigs,_and_Wear_Cows#Carnism_merge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

And the annoying thing is I'd actually trying to be more vegetarian, so it's not like I'm opposed to the view that reduction of meat would be better. But I'm a Wikipedian first; we should cover this after it's established philosophy, not while it's still just a blunt propoganda term with one advocate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

Paleolithic diet

Paleolithic diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did some clean-up on the lede of this page, but as it is has been tagged for more than a year it is clear that more work could be done.

jps (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've pecked at this from time to time and agree it needs work. One problem has been the confusion between The Paleo Diet™ and OR that tries to mingle this with suggestive stuff about paleolithic nutrition. The Paleo Diet itself is based on some fringey misconceptions. The book Paleofantasy by Marlene Zuk has some corrective material (and I even bought a hard copy of this with the aim of improving the article but alas Fringe longa, vita brevis). Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

God, is every crank diet the soruce of terrible articles? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In short, yes (mostly). And it's a growing field. I've been thinking that Fad diet could become a good hub article with each entry in the list of diets having some brief NPOV descriptive text of each diet that is in WP:SYNC with that diet's main article. That might make the whole area more manageable. Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. Diet woo is one of the most profitable forms of bullshit: one hollywood endorsement can sell a metric fucktonne of books. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Finasteride

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation, I am unclear as to whether we are covering this purported syndrome correctly in Finasteride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A lot of discussion of the purported syndrome looks distinctly fringey to me, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It helps to read things twice... I initially misread the topic of this thread... seeing it as "Fenestracide" (which I assumed was somehow related to death by Defenestration - The "Post-Fenestracide Syndome Foundation" presumably being formed to help people traumatized by being thrown out of a tall building... or something similar) my bad Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think they have started a praguematic trial... Guy (Help!) 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your czech is in the mail. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Anisur Khuda-Bukhsh

Anisur Khuda-Bukhsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an absolutely classic fringe bio. Khuda-Buksh produced a paper in the SCAM-specific BMC Complementary Medicine, purporting to show that homeopathic arsenicum album cures arsenic poisoning in mice. This was diligently promoted and resulted in a small number of reports of the claim in reliable sources (BBC, Nature India, New Scientist). Here we are over 12 years later and it has never been reproduced or successfully exploited to develop any usable treatment. Hardly a surprise since homeopathy is bullshit and the vast majority of so-called basic research in homeopathy could be published in the Archives of Irreproducible Results. So, based on that tiny, obviously incorrect and unreproduced study, we have a biography, which has at various times noted that he got a standing ovation from a room full of other homeopathy believers. I nominated it for deletion but it was kept based on one anonymous user's addition of more reports from 2003 of that same paper. I do not think one bullshit paper that has gone nowhere, qualifies per WP:PROF. The anon claims that being a professor emeritus is a singular honour in India. It's not: it just means he's retired. If we're going to have an article, it needs sources based on more than one event, I think, but every source I find is so full of homeopathy wibble that it makes my eyes bleed so it needs someone with more patience that I have for reading drivel. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Taured mystery

Taured mystery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This popped up in the New Pages feed. The sources used are abysmal, but does anyone know if the purported incident itself is notable? Kolbasz (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Some obscure non-english sources pop up, but the topic has no real footprint in reliable sources that I can find. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taured mystery is open for business. Mangoe (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges

I recently nominated the article for deletion because it does not seem to meet notability per WP:ORG outside of certain naturopathic communities. It would be good to have more opinions on the AfD discussion from more experienced editors, especially because it deals with fringe issues. There appears to be some concern that it meets GNG because it is a non-profit organization. Delta13C (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Matters (2nd nomination)

Another fringe film; this one promoting Orthomolecular medicine. No evidence of notability, so thinking that AFD is the best solution. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Siderski ?

• Siderski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anybody know anything about this guy? Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

His page looks like it is mostly copypasted from here, for one thing. And that does not look like it's compatibly licensed, so I'll send it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like yet another teacher trying to self-promote with wikipedia. Who else would copy paste the entire biography from his blog to a wiki page if not him or a close associate. No doubt he's figuring out how to license his own writing to the commons to circumvent this problem now. I don't believe there is anything notable enough about this teacher/artist to warrant a page here. He certainly doesn't provide adequate citation. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

G11, G12, A7. Nice. I nuked it. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

There is some strong fringe-pushing on this article. I recently had to delete an entire section dedicated to Stephen E. Braude quoting him as saying there is "outstanding evidence for a degree of PK far surpassing that apparently demonstrated in laboratory experiments" [39] JuliaHunter (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The user Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who added that junk seems to devote a substantial proportion of his wiki-time to promoting woo. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Claims that Roman artifacts were found at Oak Island

See Talk:Oak Island#Roman outpost claims. The same edit was made to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories and I responded there also. The main person publicising this is the inventor of CueCat J. Jovan Philyaw, who changed his name to J. Hutton Pulitzer. An article was created on him a few days ago and speedy deleted. I expect this to be back. Note that Pulitzer is litigious, so if you do write anything be aware. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Precautionary principle

Precautionary principle could use a few more eyes. The main issue is being discussed at Talk:Precautionary_principle#Whitepapers_not_reliable_sources.3F where a non-peer reviewed and self-published source has been repeatedly added by a new editor.[40] They also appear to be a WP:SPA citing the author Nassim Taleb in nearly all their article edits, and I'm not sure how to handle that in the context of fringe advocacy right now.

This is another GMO related issue. One argument coming up is that since the precautionary principle article isn't about GMOs, it's fine to insert the content specifically about GMOs without the higher scrutiny we usually give to scientific sources such as peer review, which I'm seeing some major WP:COATRACK issues with. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is this pushback against asking for peer-reviewed sources coming from lately? Today, I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Review_articles_and_peer_review on this very issue. Certainly, there are many reliable sources that are not peer reviewed, but when it comes to statements of fact, peer review should be the gold standard at the very least. White papers, sponsored reports, conference proceedings, and preprints should all be treated as preliminary primary sources that have not been fully vetted. They can be used, but the content being sourced should be couched as the opinion of the authors rather than fact. This has been the standard operating procedure at Wikipedia for as long as I've known. Did it change recently? jps (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Even a peer-reviewed article is a primary source, most published research findings are wrong, so we really need review articles if we're going to make confident statements of fact. It must be remembered that cranks these days are very good at publishing irreproducible studies "proving" the cherished belief they set out to prove. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Just looked at this (newly out-of-protection) article, and it appears there's some really horrid sourcing being used to crowbar novel COATRACKed material into the article. Could probably use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Forks Over Knives

This needs bookmarking. I was checking things, and discovered that the entire criticism section had been arbitrarily deleted a few months back - this in a "veganism prevents cancer" documentary. It still needs a LOT of work, but it also needs watched to make sure that it's not whitewashed again. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The China Study

Another in the "diet = cancer" line; very poor, all criticisms ghettoised at the end, and fringe ideas from the book given exceptional prominence and detail. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, most of that is cited to the book itself. It's a fringe (or at least poorly-sourced) exposition of health claims. I think around 80% of this article should simply be deleted as non-encyclopedic. Alexbrn (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Metatron's Cube

Metatron's Cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This survived an AFD attempt and for whatever reason got merged into Flower of Life (geometry), with which it shares almost all the same problems. Right now the only statement about it that I can source and which is relevant is "this image is called 'Metatron's Cube' by various New Age types." There's no source at all that dates further back than 1999, at best, and no source that says all the graph theory or whatever geometric burbling pads out the section is at all meaningful to anyone. Of course every citation is to what I would consider a primary source about New age/etc. claims. The claim that it is "sacred" I have to regard as bosh.

I'm not sure I can source this at all with something even vaguely authoritative. Any ideas? Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The best I can do is a geometry package using it as a title for an example piece: [41],

The Flower of Life page seems to have been voted to be deleted a few motnths back, then not deleted, and kept in a subsequent vote. That's just weird. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. What happened was a user with a particularly good geometry background spiffed up the article to match the tenor and type of other related articles (such as vesica pisces and platonic solid). jps (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (geometry) (4th nomination) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting/renaming this article is all for the better, but will leave Metatron's Cube essentially orphaned. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think redirecting Metatron's Cube to a section of overlapping circles grid could work, though it is technically the 3-D version of such (e.g. overlapping spheres lattice). jps (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Men Going Their Own Way

A very long, poorly sourced article which promotes a fringe website/movement. Gamaliel (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how to handle articles like this. It is clearly an internet-based phenomenon that has not been explored in-depth by reliable sources outside of blogs, new media websites, and user-generated content. WP:PARITY would allow basically all the critical pieces published on MGTOW the right of response, but it's entering into territory that is far different from what I'm used to. I don't understand how Wikipedia decides notability in these situations. Maybe serious feminist scholars could help with sourcing. jps (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Mercola being used as a source for fringe content

Genetically modified fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just removed three statements cited to mercola.com [42] For those who don't know who Joseph Mercola is, we have a Wikipedia article on him.

Please look over this page and look for more fringe sourcing. Note that it is subject to 1RR per the last GMO arbcom case.

Yikes!

jps (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And we have Fringe POV-pushing liftoff! [43]. jps (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been been concerned about the article for awhile, but I never caught the Mercola was being used in this fashion. It seems an editor is doubling down on using the source now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Doing a fairly quick perusal of the sources used for some of the negative claims I'm noticing there seems to be an issue with selectively choosing data from a paper that sounds bad but doesn't represent the conclusions of the papers in general. I don't have time at the moment to go over them all in depth but hopefully later tonight I will. The GM salmon section is all I looked at but it seemed to suffer from this issue of cherry picking without context. Capeo (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hippocrates Health Institute

More eyes on Hippocrates Health Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) please, we have a WP:SPA with the red-flag username MadamAccuracy who is trying to add PR fluff to the article. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm watching now. I already see that the paragraph that begins with "Many locals aren't aware..." is taken verbatim from the cited article at www.browardpalmbeach.com. The paragraph is ovbiously suffering from WP:PEACOCK, as it uses language like "world's preeminent leader," etc. I'll work on NPOV editing over the next day or so. Delta13C (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hitlers testicles.

A german claims Hitler suffered from monorchism, several newsoutlets parrot the statement. Various other sources claim there's nothing wrong with the testicles of the Führer. Is this Fringe? WP:RECENTISM (book just published)? None of the biographies I've read (several) confirms the claim and since the book has only recently been published. After the Hitler Diaries i'm extremly skeptical about any sudden, intimate revelations about Hitler. Could someone please take a look? Kleuske (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Wormcast the German that you are referring to? Main article is Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism but it is also being added as Cryptorchidism by different editors. Also added to template. For more background:

• Sixteen threads in archives for Hitler (maybe other threads depending on words searched - 2nd search)
• Talk:Monorchism#Notables?
• Mentioned in Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler
• Mentioned in Discrediting tactic as having been put out by the British and Soviets as a hoax
• ...and then there is the song, Hitler Has Only Got One Ball.

The same has been suggested of Francisco Franco and Hermann Goering, too. Likely a hoax. Speculations are often sensationalisms designed to sell books or otherwise get attention.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The recent "report" is not conclusive evidence. And one must take into account other "claims" as to Hitler which were reported in the press and books as the past, such as the Soviet false propaganda as to Hitler's death and the Hitler Diaries hoax; along with the fact that leading historians, such as Ian Kershaw have not come out in support of this claim, lends weight to it being at best a claim which is speculation and surmise. It should not be included in the main GA rated Adolf Hitler bio article. And it should not be given WP:Undue Weight in the Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism article, if consensus is to maintain mention therein. Kierzek (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It ws Carol Fenijn and 7&6=thirteen (u template breaks) who brought it up. See Talk:Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. Thanks for the prompt reply. Kleuske (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

*@7&6=thirteen: for Kleuske's attempt above. I will leave a note on that article talk page as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Likely a hoax sounds like speculation to me, we should stick to the facts - fact is that a German professor does mention this, leaving that out of the encyclopedia will make it biased. Usually, scholarly works like these are peer reviewed: http://www.verlagsdruckerei-schmidt.de/hitler/ Peter Fleischmann is a historian and head of the Bavarian state archives in Nuremberg. The different points of view should be reflected, not a selection of them. Carol Fenijn (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Likely a hoax is based on the preponderance of available evidence and more clearly upon the wide consensus here at en.wiki that it is a hoax. Did you bother to read any of the material that I linked to above? Moreover, this is an argument to be held at this article on the subject matter and not try to introduce the unaccepted point on a pop culture subject article. That is a POV fork. Best to discuss an academic matter at the academic article talk page. The doctor's work hasn't been vetted and does not have acceptance in academic circles (yet if ever at all). As stated above, the source provided does not support monorchism. From WP:PROFRINGE, "A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter, what do you mean by it in it is a hoax? A many-page peer reviewed scholarly publication that is the result of years of research by the head of the Bavarian state archives in Nuremberg is not really likely to be a hoax at all. The book actually consists of a publication of archive material with annotations, it cannot get any more factual than that! Carol Fenijn (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am preparing a full response with lots of WP:RS. In any event the test is verifiability not Truth. Dismisssively calling this a "fringe theory" is simply an attempt to obscure both historical fact and controversy. Whether he had one ball is only part of the question and answer. That it has been the subject of propaganda, speculation and research is quite another, and is beyond dispute. Are we going to censor history, too? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I say again, it is not conclusive; nor is there consensus of main-line historians on this. The doctors on both sides of the "issue" are long dead; Hitler is long dead; it is impossible to prove the information or frankly verify it fully, either. I think with the new claim, it moves above "fringe" but that's about it. To say this is "fact" is WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's impossible to prove at this point. Impossible even to verify if the doctor's report Professor Fleischmann saw is even genuine. I think this new evidence is interesting but not compelling without further verification. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a "fact." WP:Truth and WP:RS cover the issue. And that it has been asserted, debated, dissected and opined upon is itself an indisputable Fact. There is a difference between the assertion (which is admitted and can be used to show something was said or written) and whether in fact there is truth to the matter asserted. It depends on the facts that are being proved. Even in a courtroom, it is not even hearsay if being used for the first point. Your "fringe" theory claim is logically a misdirection. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't treat all claims equally as you seem to be implying. As Diannaa notes, for a claim like this to be considered credible it needs to be endorsed by multiple experts on Hitler. Entire books continue to be written about the man's health (eg [44]), so a claim by a single historian which hasn't been endorsed by other historians should be treated very cautiously. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You apparently don't get the difference between the assertions themselves and the facts as they may be sorted out. The assertions alone have independent significance. It does not make them true, but it does make them said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight states "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." I can see its mention in this article but trying to make this look substantiated in the article on the song and asserted as if it were fact is POV forking. Isn't this fun? Here it is hours before Christmas Eve and we are arguing about Hitler's balls...it seems like there should be copious amounts of alcohol involved when discussing these popular party topics.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not discussing Hitler's ananatomy, we are discussing whether a certain source can be quoted or not. Merry Chrismas for those who celebrate that. Carol Fenijn (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wormcast here. I felt that the addition of the recently stengthened Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism to the Hitler template was justified based on the template's longstanding inclusion of Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death - a short article that largely discusses dubious and debunked theories. Perhaps I should have deleted the latter, rather than added the former? For the record, I'm not German (of course, you only have my word on that - not a formal review from the scientific community or other high-quality reliable sources...). -Wormcast (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's debates like this that make Wikipedia fun despite the POV-pushers and assorted missionary loons. Basically an entire article that can be traced back to a ribald soldiers' song. Fantastic! Guy (Help!) 00:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• So, in a nutshell, the dispute here is: does the fact that the Hitler's testicle case is tainted by a connection to a shit source disqualify it from inclusion; or is it notable in virtue of the longstanding and well-publicized debate itself? -Wormcast (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• What I want to know is: do we have RS for the other ball being in the Albert Hall? (Also: an old Dutchman I was acquainted with insisted that Adolf lost his ball when, for a student bet, he urinated into a goat's mouth --- the goat bit back). Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• And apparently, for this topic, Fox News is a reliable source (and also apparently The Sun) ! Alexbrn (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Concluding, various newspapers like the Guardian do appear in quotes in wiki articles, but a thorough scholarly work like http://www.verlagsdruckerei-schmidt.de/hitler/ is forbidden. Carol Fenijn (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps more NPOV, and shorter, for the template: Hitler's testicle(s) (I'd have preferred Hitler's ball(s), but I suppose it would be nixed for tone.) - Nunh-huh 01:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sam Parnia

• Ferrer1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) massive chunks of copyrighted material being re-added by this user. The same user has also been deleting skeptical references which he considers biased and has inserted personal commentary into the article. This will probably turn into an edit war, so any eyes welcome. The article also suffers from over-use of primary sources, but I am not going to attempt to fix that now. JuliaHunter (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• JuliaHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) thank-you for your comment, but are you sure all your points correspond to reality? After *Diannaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a very experienced wikipedian, mentioned copyright issues and deleted some paragraphs a few days ago, I spent 1-2 hours rewording 2 paragraphs she had erased and I also diligently tried to avoid close paraphrasing. Since it is very specific medical vocabulary (cardiac arrest) it is very difficult. After doing this I also contacted *Diannaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Then I reworded two more paragraphs which she had deleted. And again I really tried to do my best to rephrase using my wording and avoiding close paraphrasing as she had suggested. And again it took me quite sometime to do this. So overall I reedited 4 paragraphs and was very careful to diligently follow instructions by *Diannaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So it is neither "massive chuncks of copyrighted material being readded" nor an edit war. Regarding personal commentaries I thank-you for pointing that out. Could you please be so kind to highlight the text ? I am new to Wikipedia and this would be very helpful. Finally regarding skeptical references being erased - I am not too sure why you use the plural (i.e. references versus reference). I did erase one, and I put an explanation in the talk page explaining in detail why that comment was simply wrong. Before taking this decision (of deleting comment) I had carefully read the referenced material and saw that what had been written did not reflect what was being said in the referenced material. Finally, one question, more out of curiosity - why did you write your comment on the Fringe theories noticeboard when 90% of all the work I did revolved around cardiac arrest management and care (certainly not fringe theories)? Thanking you in advance for your kind replies. Ferrer1965 (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You have inserted personal comments into the article such as adding the skeptic Keith Augustine "has not himself done any research in the field and therefore has no hands on experience" Do you think that is acceptable? You also say you rephrased the copyrighted material but a problem remains. The problem is that those remain as huge chunks of text, it is too similar to the source cited which is a primary source. The edit I am referring to is this one [45]. JuliaHunter (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• JuliaHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thank-you for your prompt reply. I am moving the discussion back to Dr Sam Parnia's talk page since we are talking about cardiac management. I am going to take every paragraph you either deleted or edited and go thorugh it with you and we try to reach a consensus.Ferrer1965 (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli

Ruggero Santilli is a physicist who propounds esoteric ideas of quantum mechanics, chemistry, and who considers both the Theory of Relativity and the Nobel Prize to be Jewish conspiracies. The biographical page, already long, is periodically expanded by editors wishing to propound and defend Santilli’s theories. Santilli runs a number of fringy journals and institutes; many of the sources currently used in the article are not clearly independent. The article appears to act as a fringe magnet. Might we be better off without it? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should have articles on notable fringe pushers, articles which actually state that they are fringe pushers. But I don't know if Santilli is notable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Mark, I've been dealing with fringe archaeology articles for years, longer than I've been a Wikipedia editor. For many of these we are just about the only easily available source that readers can come to and find a mainstream/skeptical view. So yes, I think we should keep some articles. The real problem is those fringe subjects that the mainstream has ignored as a waste of time discussiong. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus has long been that this particular character is notable, but the article could certainly serve to be pared down along the lines suggested by WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there currently any socking? It was previously a serious problem there. Here are a few SPIs:

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaufman1111/Archive
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive/1
3. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScientificEthics/Archive
4. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aabrucadubraa/Archive
5. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zkurko/Archive

BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carnism_(4th_nomination)

Fringe neologism. One of the worst examples of a WP:COATRACK I've seen ever. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not so much that as a case of WP:NEO - a plausible search term but of no independent significance. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Bigfoot

Bigfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs pruning with a hatchet. Somewhere around September the article ballooned into a mess. Huge sections on "sightings", over 500 refs, a ridiculous level of credulity. It needs serious, serious work. More than I have time for currently. Capeo (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably needs a total rewrite (and yes, I don't really have the time or interest to tackle it either) But Is there a "last clean" version from before September that you think was a better version? It might be helpful to compare the two for the purposes of beginning a cleanup. Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll try to find some time before New Years festivities start tonight to look at the history a bit deeper. Capeo (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap, this massive expansion was done through thousands of edits by one user going back to July. The article before then wasn't that good anyway but wow. The user name explains a lot actually. I have no idea where to begin. This monstrosity has 200 more refs than our WWII article. It's basically been turned into a typical Bigfoot website. I thought I had it watchlisted but clearly I didn't or I would've nipped it in the bud. Capeo (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That is going to need a massive amount of content editing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it will. Want to help? I'm okay with adding a bit here or there with refs but cutting down an article this size and dealing with all the hanging refs and such is a bit beyond me I think. My next project was going to be another little well received indie movie that could be taken care of in a night. This is an undertaking a good bit beyond that. Capeo (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I just added "mythical" as the first adjective so that the mainstream view is mentioned first, per due weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears there was a massive rewrite done by RogerKni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who in my opinion did not fully understand WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. The article may need to be reverted to a pre-RogerKni version [46]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, that's the solution— though I'm sure it will stir up a shitstorm. Reverting it back to the "last clean" version, and then build it from there. Way easier than sifting through the cruft.Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Follow up: I boldly nuked it. If others want to revert, no worries, just BRD on my part. Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Patterson–Gimlin film also was extensively rewritten by RogerKni. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe give it the same treatment I gave bigfoot. Be bold, see what happens. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"most scientists discount" ?

In the lede says "most scientists discount the existence of Bigfoot". Is this really NPOV? Surely Bigfoot (according to to good RS) does not exist? Anyway, this a question to contemplate as I bid all readers here: Happy New Year! Alexbrn (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

But that lede statement is supported by a secondary RS?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

And how would you rate the quality of that source? Alexbrn (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not decided yet. Does it not meet any of the RS criteria?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it meets some in the general sense: but for a specific statement that the non-existence of Bigfoot is merely something that "most scientists believe" ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So if it meets RS and it is verifiable, it stays. As you well know, the truth, but particularly your opinion, do not matter here. You are only an editor.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Well no, because all sources are RS for their own opinion. Have you decided yet how you'd rate the quality of the source for that particular statement? Alexbrn (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is a statement of fact, rather than opinion...but it is RS and it is verifiable. Your opinion is not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have two Bigfoot threads going at once? Happy New Year to all BTW. Capeo (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ineptitude on my part - I'll merge them. HNY everyone! Alexbrn (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I nuked the version being discussed above and restored the July version as a "last clean" version. I think on this one, there's not a serious dispute that we have a mythical phenomenon going on there, and the rest is more nuances of content. I suggest we all just take this over there; I did what cleanup that was short and sweet, those who care more can perhaps continue at article talk. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If anyone wants to figure out those nuances come to the talk page. Also feel free to compile possible sources in my sandbox. Capeo (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Peter Underwood Ghost Books

Peter Underwood (parapsychologist) wrote many books on ghosts, the problem is that I do not think they are notable enough to have individual Wikipedia entries. These have recently been created:

• Haunted London (1973)
• Gazetteer of British Ghosts (1971)

They are entirely sourced to other fringe paranormal books on ghosts. Any opinion about these? JuliaHunter (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Slap on merge tags to merge them into the Underwood article. If no one objects in a week or so, then merge and redirect the titles. Don't go to the drama boards unless there are objections raised that can't be dealt with at article talk. Montanabw^(talk) 03:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a completely mechanical question, showing my ignorance, but there's no way we can do a merge history ourselves right? Without an adim? Neither of the articles deserve their own article. Capeo (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to do a history merge, just use the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags to seek input, and then if you get a resounding silence, then just take the relevant parts of the articles and paste them into the main one, then leave a redirect behind. The only time you need a history merge are for more complicated situations such as two articles on the same topic and such. The beauty of a redirect as opposed to a deletion is that if someone tries to recreate the article, you've most likely got the redirects on your watchlist and will know when someone is dinking around with it again... Montanabw^(talk) 05:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Zone diet

• Zone diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another fad diet; needs eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

Barack Obama and the Enemies Within (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could do with a bit more attention. -- haminoon (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic

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

It is classified as a field of pseudomedicine. was deleted from the lede. See Talk:Chiropractic#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_22_December_2015 for discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Erika Schwartz

Erika Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Promoter of "natural" hormones that fails GNG. There is a history of COI and puffery. I worked on improving the article today, especially its poor sources, and decided it was best to nominate for deletion. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Schwartz. Delta13C (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Anopsology

• Anopsology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another cancer-cure diet. Doubt if it's notable. Anybody know more? Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This is in order: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Anopsology Delta13C (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it seems so. This article has been live for 10 years. Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: transhumanist politics

There is a Request for Comment at the Talk page for transhumanist politics. The Transhumanist Party recently finished an American bus tour – should it be mentioned in the "History" section of the article? - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There's also a related discussion to restart the Transhumanist Party article, from the same people again, with much the same sources as before, but this time there's a tour bus - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Electronic harassment

Electronic harassment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has always been a perpetual magnet for fringe proponents, but lately there has been lots of activity on the Talk page by a bunch of brand-new new SPAs. One is campaigning to split the article into separate sections giving equal weight to mainstream psychiatric views and the views of delusional people who think they are being persecuted via electromagnetic waves. Another wants to add material about electronic warfare that correlates speculative military technology to fringe claims that such technology is being used to harass private citizens. Another wants to add material that lists existing laws banning "harmful electronic devices" (i.e. tasers, stun guns, etc) to bolster the idea that electronic mind control harassment exists. A few more eyes on the Talk page would be helpful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

We'll do that just as soon as there is robust evidence that "electromagnetic harassment" exists in the real world. I do not advise anyone reading, to hold their breath in the meantime... Guy (Help!) 23:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Watts Up With That?

Watts Up With That? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's pretty clear that the best sources identify this as one of the most famous global warming denial blogs. Nevertheless, our lede persists in declaring it a blog dedicated to "climate change skepticism or denial" which is a weird turn of phrase (which is it, please?)

Note that reverts tend to happen.

jps (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Braco

Braco (faith healer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is, I think, differently neutral. The subject carefully avoids making any claims, leaving all that business of hype and bullshit to his followers, but the article still reads more like a fan piece. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Food Matters

This film, which advocates for orthomolecular medicine was kept on the basis of sources being found (not fantastic ones, but the WP:GNG can be interpreted very liberally sometimes). In any case, help is needed to try to avoid this film being used as a coatrack to promote the film's pro-altmed views. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

...Oh, never mind. I just found the copyvio. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Promoting Fringe on the Front Page

Taking a quick break from my retirement to query this article being promoted on the Front Page. Was there really no other historical event of greater significance on that date such that we are reduced to promoting UFO sighting at WP:OTD? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ehh, I see nothing at all wrong with us covering fringe topics just as we do any other topic that's suitable for a Wikipedia article. I think this page is more about making sure that fringe topic coverage in Wikipedia is suitably Wikipedian. I'm very interested in fringe topics (if as a skeptic) and am all for good coverage of them that's up to Wikipedia standards - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

At least it's a famous incident in comparison to many we've removed from Wikipedia over the years. There was considerable national coverage in the media over it. jps (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is actually quite skeptical of the incident, especially when compared to some other UFO articles. It provides an extensive discussion of the Air Force investigation and conclusion that the "UFO" was actually a secret Skyhook balloon. I don't get the sense that it's promoting a fringe view. Just my two cents. 2602:304:691E:5A29:8481:F4D0:7A40:AA72 (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, a little fun on the front page is OK so long as the article passes muster, I'm good with it. May want to keep a closer eye on what pops up at DYK, though, those are newer article with fewer eyes. Montanabw^(talk) 06:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bruno Gröning

• Bruno Gröning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just ran across this article about the a German faith healer that appears to have been written primarily from self-published, in-world sources. I thought this would be the best place to get some new eyes on the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not just AfD this article? Delta13C (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the German Red Cross doesn't want to touch the group named after this guy with a 10 foot pole: [47] Delta13C (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• I removed the obvious unreliable sources. There remains one newspaper story and a number of book refs that may also be unreliable, feel free to nuke them if they are. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thetruemovie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted back in the "sources" I removed. I have removed them again. Thetruemovie is a WP:SPA and seems to me to be likely to be involved in one or more of the websites. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd try an AfD, that's a good way to get an assessment of notability (or notoriety). If it gets deleted, end of drama (we hope). If not, then the sourcing debate can begin... Montanabw^(talk) 05:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He's notable. I even found an academic source that includes him (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667597?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Black, Monica. 2012. “Miracles in the Shadow of the Economic Miracle: The “supernatural '50s” in West Germany”. The Journal of Modern History 84 (4). University of Chicago Press: 833–60. doi:10.1086/667597) but I dont have access to it. The problems are that very little has been written about him in English, and that there are multiple organizations promoting his theories. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have access to the source and it is clear from the source that he is notable. He had a large following in 1950s Germany and accrued a lot of media attention at the time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Faiths of the Founding Fathers

The matter of exactly how religious the founding fathers are is somewhat contentious; the old "all the ones who mattered were deists" line hasn't weathered well but I don't know that I would go as far as the thesis of this particular book. That, however, is not why I'm here. We have an author whom I gather is from somewhere in the Iran-to-India region dropping in some material about Zoroastrianism which strikes me as at best loopy and at worst complete gibberish. I've run out of reverts but it would be useful for someone else to look at this and perhaps make an effort to get this guy back on track. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot that this account is up to: [48]. Don't exactly know what to make of it all. jps (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. Did you also check contribs? This was the rough draft. FWIW, while this editor does sound like he has a genuine interest in the topic, there are also some white supremacist groups that combine "Aryan occultism" or "magic" with anti-semitism. Might want to keep an eye out for that, just as a precaution. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see any anti-semiticism in the account's contributions. I think the account is rather just adding a lot of Zoroastrianism to various articles which actually may be somewhat useful here at Wikipedia in our ongoing fight against WP:Systemic bias. On the other hand, it's not impossible that some other agenda is its game. jps (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess we just sit tight and take the edits as well-intentioned and at face value, even if they are undue or not appropriate to a given article. I think the neo-nazi pagans are more into worshipping Odin, anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 00:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There is some loopy theory going around now that all the founding fathers were--not deists, as was claimed for years--but occultists and that half the structures in Washington DC are built on occultic symbols. Personally, I really doubt it and think it's one of those internet myths. The Revolution wasn't that long after the Salem Witch Trials. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, that's Freemasonry stuff; and most of them were Masons. Nothing new there... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 00:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Constellations

• Family Constellations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Systemic Constellations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Got a fresh WP:SPA active on these articles; could uses eyes. (Update: editor got blocked for socking; still, these articles should be on the watchlists of all fringe connoisseurs). Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Veganism reversing cancer etc.

At Talk:Veganism#Vegan health claims and NPOV there is some debate about how to frame claims that a vegan diet can prevent and reverse serious disease, and whether/how WP:FRINGE applies. More eyes from fringe-savvy editors would be helpful! Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

ugh. not a fan of health claims. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the claim is not being made in Wikivoice -- it's a historical accounting of claims made by people from as far back as 1815. So in that sense, it's not a claim in Wikivoice and should not be treated as such. SageRad (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying this and it's just wrong; the paragraphs in question are about modern times and were airing the current fringe views of people like Michael Greger. Anyway, this issue seems to have been resolved now. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Stephen E. Braude

Stephen E. Braude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:FRINGEBLP. Seems to suffer from some soapboxing. Please be gentle in the cleanup.

jps (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I'll watch and work on it. Delta13C (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Braude's fringe views are being pushed at other articles. See Talk:Psychokinesis#Stephen_E._Braude. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)