Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 44

Ayurveda
Should this article be covered by Arbcom sanctions on Pseudoscience, and should it also be categorised as such? I think it should be covered and is pseudoscience fwiw. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You couldn't notify on Talk:Ayurveda about this discussion, I have done that for you. Any articles, I mean just any can be non-controversial and less irritating when they don't have editors who lack general competence and bases their rationale on dubious I don't like it approach. Yes I am talking about you, you didn't even knew the definition of Vandalism, thus a topic ban on such a editor is possibly enough for solving remaining tensions, if there are any. Otherwise if there is some ongoing trend of many editors(I don't see any except you) fighting for a long time on this article, then sure it can be brought under sanctions. But for a long time I don't see any reverts but meaningful discussion made by everyone else, excluding you. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bladesmulti, can you explain how any of that has the slightest bearing on the question Roxy asked? If you have issues with Roxy's editing, please discuss them elsewhere - nobody is going to topic ban anyone here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And back on topic - no Ayurveda isn't in of itself pseudoscience. As a belief system it long pre-dates science. What may be pseudoscientific are modern claims of efficacy regarding specific Ayurvedic practices not supported by appropriate evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly and we have to stick to MEDRS about every particular claim about medical efficacy, there was clearly no possibility to include any of the claims that would contradict the authoritative medical researches. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti: Roxy is well aware of the definition of vandalism, and your comment seems to be quite tangential to the original point. You should stop making up things to discredit editors that you disagree with. bobrayner (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Answer to the question is no. I was about to bring this subject to other noticeboard for discussing its content and here I can see at least 2 sections have been opened about this article, and this one wasn't needed because it should have been discussed on the article talk(page) first. You cannot find any discussion there. That's why my comment was mostly about Roxy, rather than his question. Bladesmulti (talk)
 * In response to the specific question of whether the article is covered under discretionary sanctions, I would assume the answer is yes. I would refer to this request for clarification at ARCA on the topic of chiropractic, and especially this diff which was endorsed by several arbitrators. The relevant quote is: "pages related to any topic that has been discussed in reliable sources as constituting or being related to pseudoscience and fringe science, or which is described in its Wikipedia article or categories as such (including, in either case, situations where the classification as pseudoscience or fringe science is disputed)."


 * That said, it is a different matter whether categorization as pseudoscience is appropriate or not. :-) Sunrise  (talk)  19:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a different matter. I agree with Andy that it's basically protoscience, although some recent advocacy of it would count as pseudoscience. It shouldn't be categorised as pseudoscience but the discretionary sanctions should apply. It definitely comes under the scope of this board. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I obviously don't hold a mop, but can I place the template on the talk page? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:DS says, "Any editor may advise any other editor"...Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. I intended to paste the DS content here but ran into some coding problem which I don't understand, so here's the first and last of it at least.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC))


 * For the record, I've placed the above template on the AV talk page, and warned a fringe editor of said sanctions -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I had asked Sandstein and according to him, "that would depend how it is described in relevant reliable sources", when it comes to the Arbcom sanctions, related to pseudoscience. Although this subject is not one and we don't have any reliable citations that would support. When I attempted to find at least one citation, I found opposite.(Oxford univ.) In a matter of few hours, if Roxy the Dog or any one else happen to find some reliable citations that would state(and describe) that AV is pseudoscience, then only we can consider. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Blades, you have changed the above post some four hours after you originally made it, without acknowledging the change. I will WP:AGF and continue to believe that the fact that multiple editors have pointed out that the citation you gave actually says the opposite to what you say it says, and your new ref may not be relevant to the subsequent conversation on this thread, it could not possibly be your intent to deceive us in this case. I would like to point out that this change may confuse new editors to the page, as much of the following conversation is predicated on it. Bad form though Blades. tut tut. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't really pointed to it, as discussion still seemed to be relevant about the source I had specifically highlighted. I was by far only pointing to the lines openly told me many times, that they practice, most often ayurveda, couldn't specifically copy and paste due to copyright issues. Bladesmulti (talk)
 * The source you pointed to says, "Both [Astrology and Ayurveda] are labeled 'pseudoscience' in the official agenda of the rationalists" It goes on to provide a quote about those who consider ayurveda scientific don't know enough about the topic. The section starts with the sentence, "There are some ideological realms where the official agenda of ANiS is not applied in the ideal way by a majority of it's members." it is discussing ayurveda and astrology and clearly both the author and ANiS consider them both to be pseudoscience. I would have to say the source supports the label of pseudoscience not "quite the oposite". Before putting forth a source it is a good idea to read more than a single sentence generated by a search. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * MrBill3; Cherrypicking a few sentences wouldn't speak enough. ANiS means Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti, and the paragraph is after all about the organization's views. Author doesn't seem to be holding any of his own view about AV in whole book. So there's still no reason to consider AV to be pseudoscience. ANiS is concerned with Astrology, that it is pseudoscience(see last paragraph and next page), not AV. If you have any particular citation that would describe AV as pseudoscience then only we can establish something. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First this is the source you provided in an attempt to assert ayurveda is not considered pseudoscience. Second try giving the whole page a read. It makes it clear that the organization (ANiS) clearly considers ayurveda pseudoscience. If you try reading some more of the content of the book it is mostly about ANiS and the book is about "a movement that is based on the explicit intent to challenge belief in magical powers of irrational efficacy as well as the influence of charismatic gurus." It was you who cherry picked a single sentence. Read at least the full page you pointed to and perhaps the introduction also, context matters. BTW the position of an organization published in this context is a reliable source, it need not be the opinion of the author. The organization clearly considers ayurveda pseudoscience and the author seems to be in agreement (context matters). I really suggest you read the book.
 * See also, Which includes ayurveda in the discussion headed pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's members are also saying that they don't consider it as pseudoscience? Not even a matter because it is about a irrelevant organization. Author has clearly stated none of his opinion.
 * As for your second citation, it is no where describing ayurveda, and there is only a unreferenced flying mention. While author has cited reference for others. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It has an entry in this encyclopedia of pseudoscience, which is suggestive. Alexbrn talk 16:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While many of the pages includes the paragraphs about places, historians, just a paragraph in a book is not enough, only because book's title includes the word pseudoscience, it is not saying that AV is pseudoscience or anything close to it. While it has generally considered other concepts like Psychic surgery to be pseudo-scientific. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And this book on science in India tells us that some people view it as pseudoscience (or worse). Looking at the sourcing I think neglecting to mention that (at least) some people view ayurvedic medicine as pseudoscience would be a touch coy ... we should be neutral here. Alexbrn talk 16:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Should be described in relevant reliable sources. Flying mentions about some view cannot be considered to be descriptive. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semple & Smyth 2013 is a very strong source very clearly describing ayurveda as pseudoscience, Quack 2011 provides clear description of a notable organization's position, Paranjape 2009 provides more than a flying mention it provides a clear description, an entry in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience is notable. The sources are piling up and your arguments are becoming tendentious. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For good measure: - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not describing as such, can you quote here? Your citation Bad Medicine: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, doesn't include the word pseudoscience or anything close to it, if its about AV. Just bringing up many irrelevant references wouldn't solve anything. Read OR, SYNTH. A source has to state 2+2=4 then only you can refer at such, in fact, if it has referred 2 & 2, it wouldn't be considered as 2 plus 2. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Your statement is counter factual. Semple & Smyth explicitly use the word pseudoscience and describe how ayurveda is pseudoscience. Quack presents the explicit statement of the official position of ANiS (which the author endorses, read the book). Inclusion in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience is also fairly explicit. Paranjape also explicitly uses the word pseudoscience (again look to context, the book is about science in India, the positions represented are those of the scientific community). I think Wanjek's description can be fairly paraphrased as describing ayurveda as pseudoscience and it includes "faulty science". I think paraphrasing 2 & 2 as 2 plus 2 is not what consensus would consider synth or OR (of course context matters). Your contention that the references are irrelevant is nonsensical. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to your request for quotes, Semple and Smyth, "These pseudoscientific theories may be based on authority rather than empirical observation (e.g. old-school psychoanalysis, New Age psychotherapies, Thought Field Therapy), concern the unobservable (e.g. orgone energy, chi), confuse the metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki, therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine), or even maintain views that contradict known scientific laws (e.g. homeopathy)." (italics in original). - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Describing means written representation or account of object, it should be detailed. How a flying mention could be considered as a description? I only talked about irrelevant references, you misunderstood that part.
 * Pranjapae starts with people who rate AV as "proto-scientific system" and ends with "yet there are others" who reject it as pseudo-science, all in all,  it is just a one liner. "Faulty science" is of course not the term that we would be using on encyclopedia, how you found it to be 100% related with pseudoscience?
 * Now since we have citations about Traditional Chinese medicine, Psychic surgery, and many other concepts. Why we couldn't have one good citation about AV, stating that it is pseudoscience, it seems to be very hard compared to rest of the pseudo-scientific concepts.
 * In your search, can you try including the terms like proto science or pre-science/pre=scientific, you would happen to find many citations with detailed instead of these 2 or 3, because that is how AV is usually described. Proto-science largely differs from pseudoscience. Question is, that what is normally accepted? That's what we stick to. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Semple & Smyth are describing pseudoscience and it's characteristics and list ayurveda as an example. The description is adequately detailed and the characterization is unquestionable. Pranjapae states, "It may be pointed out that varied views are prevalent on the epistemological nature of Ayurveda. There are people who would rate Ayurveda as a proto-scientific system of thought, yet others would go so far as to reject Ayurveda as pseudo-science altogether, not to speak of characterizing it as unscientific. Today, Ayurvedic professionals are struggling to prove the so-called 'scientificity' of Ayurveda." So in discussing how ayurveda is characterized in science clearly there are those who call it pseudoscience. This is also supported in Quack. What source do you have that states "what is normally accepted" or "usually described"? Pranjapae supports the contention that multiple descriptions are used, explicitly including pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the same book of Pranjapae, you can find "Ayuveda exemplifies proto-science at best and would have been fared better if it had shed the remnants of the magico-religious tradition out of which it developed and turned into a more rational approach to healing." Then there are many paragraphs about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the authors gives their own view - but that does not somehow negate the information that some view Ayurvedia as pseudoscience; since some good sources agree on this we owe it to inform our readers such a view is held. Alexbrn talk 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct and I am not actually saying that we should disregard those who consider it as pseudoscience otherwise I would be at Pseudoscience and removing the mention of AV. But like we all know that there are mentions, and indeed such view is held. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So Pranjapae says "proto-science at best" if that is the best possible characterization what would be the "normally accepted" or "usually described" characterization? He specifically stated it is characterized by some as pseudoscience. Notable science journalist David Bradley wrote, "One area of non-western science that many western medics and scientists say is nothing more than pseudoscientific claptrap is Ayurvedic medicine." - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * a marginal source provides a decent discussion that essentially reveals research into ayurveda as pseudoscientific and states, "Already Ayurveda has been characterized as “pseudoscience” by Beall in the wake of the sudden explosion of spurious publishers and publications dealing with research in Ayurveda." (goes on to point out Beall's bias but supports his contention). - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the best possible characterization, but certainly one of them, because pre-scientific/proto-scientific seems to be more in common. Commenting on sciencebase article, what they say is purely speculation, though he ends with "Perhaps it is time modern science took a closer look at the multitude of alternative remedies that sit under the Ayurvedic umbrella." And "perhaps science should consider the holistic approach to drug discovery with a view to coping with the side effects and improving efficacy overall." It seems to me like you are naming me every single page which has included ayurveda and pseudoscience together or any similar term, but you are not telling that how they are describing. The best you had was Semple & Smyth, who just added ayurveda as one of the example, but didn't explained about it. Let me repeat once again, it would depend how it is described in relevant reliable sources.
 * The journal you have cited, Manohar further writes "Although Beall is obviously biased against Ayurveda and uses this opportunity to spice up his arguments against Ayurveda, it is important to realize that the lapses within the Ayurvedic community makes the latter vulnerable to criticism." So we are going to take a biased opinion? If no, then how we can only believe on the first few lines, but not the rest? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources with a bias are acceptable, read the policy. WP represents the published sources including their opinions, the opinions and biased statements of notable, relevant authors are acceptable content. In some cases attribution is appropriate, but Pranjapae has published it as an opinion that is held in the field at least by some. What medics and scientists say is not "purely speculation" it is a description of the view of at least a portion of the scientific/medical/academic community. It has been clearly established that there are multiple published sources that support the statement that ayurveda is considered pseudoscience by members of the scientific, medical and academic community, given that including that information in the article is appropriate.
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first few lines at most. I am not saying that any of them should be disregarded, since they are generally considered as good sources like we have discussed above, and this discussion was more about the sanctions. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Paranjape states at best that's the source, a WP editor's opinion on what is the best or "seems to be more in common" are OR without sources to back it up. On WP it is what the sources say. Semple & Smyth do indeed describe how ayurveda is pseudoscience "confuse the metaphysical with empirical claims". That is "how it is described in a reliable source", pseudoscience that confuses the metaphysical with empirical claims. Quack presents the official position of a notable organization (an opinion he endorses, he considers mixed adherence to that position a shortcoming). Paranjape presents the opinions of members of the scientific/academic community. Bradley presents the opinions of "many western medics and scientists". Beall presents his opinion that of a notable, relevant authority. Manohar finds his characterization notable enough to quote and provides a description of the published science on ayurveda consistent with the definition of pseudoscience. The encyclopedia of pseudoscience lists ayurveda as an entry. Wanjek's description is a rather detailed explanation of how ayurveda is pseudoscience (certainly a fair paraphrase, not OR or SYNTH). You have asked for sources that specifically describe ayurveda as pseudoscience, multiple sources have been provided. Clearly reliable sources describe ayurveda as pseudoscience (or considered pseudoscience by members of the scientific/academic/medical community) you can't ask for 2+2 and then say 2+2 isn't adequate description. Of note for explanation of the basis for applying a term, a description consistent with the definition of the term is fairly paraphrased through the application of the term. That is not OR or Synth that is using a word as what it means. If the word pseudoscience applies to the subject of the article it falls within the purview of the sanctions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it could be considered as one, then obviously I wouldn't have problem if it is within the range of sanctions. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ayurveda+pseudoscience+&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl Ayurveda is known to be a pseudoscience. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it could be considered as one" Multiple sources have been supplied, quoted and explained. QG's search link returns a large number of books which "consider it one". The only counter arguments have been "maybe science should" "proto-science at best" nothing in any way countering the clear characterization in multiple sources. It is clear that ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience so "it is within the range of sanctions". No policy based, sourced backed argument has been put forth that challenges the assertion that ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience. Good faith is being strained. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources can be added to the article and summarised in the lede. QuackGuru ( talk ) 02:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New discussion started for this edit and this change. See Talk:Ayurveda. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I added another source and it was deleted. No matter what source is used it will likely be deleted. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Above discussion was just about putting article under the arbcom sanctions on pseudoscience, but there was some requirement of sources, if they consider AV to be pseudoscience, and we did it. No agreement for categorizing/generalizing it as pseudoscience. If recognition is the case, AV has been added to Pseudoscience and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, and it's been a while. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So ayurveda is listed both as a pseudoscientific concept and in the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. That seems to indicate there is fairly strong widespread consensus to categorize ayurveda as pseudoscience on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ayurveda is not a main subject, it is Alternative medicine which is categorized as pseudoscience. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not have to be a "main subject" if something is listed as a specific example within a category or list, that indicates it is within that category and meets the criteria for that list. Just to provide a clear theoretical example, "Water can exist in a variety of states, liquid, frozen (e.g. ice) etc." This statement although not providing verbose discussion of ice, supports the fact that "ice is water in a frozen state". A list with a variety of sub headings and examples under those subheads and even specific instances of the examples, places those examples and instances clearly within the criteria of the list that's is what an example and instance are. Another example, a list of birds, the subheading flightless birds, the example the emu. Your tendentious arguement would say emu is not a main subject it is flightless birds that are categorized as birds, thus this list does not support emus are birds. Your behavior is becoming to tendentious to the point of disruptive. Disruptive editing is violation of policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it is you who is trying to have same circular discussion on here and Talk:Ayurveda. Above part has nothing to do with the subject and since the authoritative definition of AV has no relation with the pseudoscience, there should be no dispute. If you think that creating a toxic environment is going to help, you are incorrect. I recommend you to read DR, it describes how to work in case of disagreements with others. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You stated this discussion was regarding applicability of the pseudoscience sanctions and suggested the issue of characterization in the article be taken to Talk:Ayurveda. "since the authoritative definition of AV has no relation with the pseudoscience, there should be no dispute." What authoritative definition of AV? Regardless what matters is "how it is described in reliable sources." AV is described as pseudoscience in multiple reliable sources, a number of which have been presented, quoted and explained here.
 * Using just the content of the article at this time, pseudoscience is clearly indicated a medicine system with no scientific evidence for efficacy and reliance on the classical five elements is precisely pseudoscience. Do you have a definition that isn't something pretending to be science with no evidence base and underpinnings of concepts long since dismissed by science in a reliable source? Several reliable sources have described ayurveda as precisely that and characterized it as pseudoscience.
 * I am familar with DR, and WP:DE § WP:IDHT. I have also noticed you have refactored comments after they have been replied to, failed to take any of the sources you claim don't support the proposals to RSN, suddenly jumped away from discussing characterization of ayurveda here when overwhelming evidence was presented after having ongoing discussion of that here. Bringing this to FTN is a part of dispute resolution process. I am not creating a toxic environment I am pointing out to you that it is your behavior that has started to become an issue and this will likely go to the appropriate forum to address that. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean you are not going to explain this revert? QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done, on the talk page. Above discussion is probably over, let's keep further discussion there (Talk:Ayurveda). Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you have not. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I formatted another source to add to the article. Reliable sources belong in the article. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nofel Izz, Inventor?

 * Talk:Nofel_Izz
 * Talk:Nofel_Izz

Izz is a businessman who sold his online recruiting firm, Jobs in Dubai, for $9 million in 2011 according to a published announcement.

He's promoted himself as an inventor, having patented a type of condom wrapper, and actively promoting his designs for an emergency oxygen mask and a space tower. In a recent RfC, multiple editors argued against presenting these inventions, and they've been substantially de-emphasized. However, these comments bring up points that might be best dealt here, as the inventions appear simplistic to the point that it's likely no science or engineering journalist would ever take them serious enough to even mention them. How should we treat this given we're unlikely to ever have sources beyond his own p.r.? Have similar inventors been discussed here? --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * These concerns have been extensively if not exhaustively discussed on the article talk page, particularly under Talk:Nofel Izz and Talk:Nofel Izz, where the consensus is that the article as at revision 629505495 is properly cited with reliable sources and passes WP:NPOV. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That version makes mention of "the concept of Telescopic Exo Shell" which will be nonsense to our readers, so if there's a local consensus in favour of this version of the article it's probably right to kick it upstairs to this noticeboard. Alexbrn talk 13:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Thank you. There's no consensus for such nonsense, but that's for WP:COIN and WP:ANI to address.
 * So, what has been done with other articles? --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Alexbrn, the reliable sources cited and majority of the contributors to the talk page discussions do not think that the mention of the concept of Telescopic Exo Shell in the article is "nonsense to our readers"; note that that revision has since been improved upon, and I have rephrased that particular line too. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're not addressing the relevant policy and guideline issues here. You're once again claiming consensus and a majority (which is often irrelevant to consensus-building) despite the majority of editors involved disagreeing. As noted, these problems need to be addressed at WP:COIN and ANI. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My words are quite clear, that the contents are supported by citations to reliable sources, it meets WP:NPOV and passes WP:UNDUE, and of most of the contributors, you alone is consistently disagreeing with this—Talk:Nofel Izz and Talk:Nofel Izz. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of asserting your "majority" (which appears to include only yourself), you'll have to identify exactly who and how they agree (diffs will suffice). Meanwhile, you've still demonstrated no understanding of the policy/guideline concerns here. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-relevant discussions from archives:
 * BlackLight Power Company, but we're already rejected Telescopic Exo Shell. One editor just wants to be sure to mention the name "Telescopic Exo Shell" in the article on Izz despite it being a nonsensical phrase.--Ronz (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lamarr as an inventor. In contrast to Izz's claims, hers are well-documented and clearly worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of the "inventions" discussed to support their notability. Lack of characterization as "inventor" or discussion of "inventions" in reliable sources. The inclusion of these inventions and the characterization as inventor is not supported by significant coverage in reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is now in accordance with wiki rules and guidelines, this is a biographical living person article, there is no need of the significant coverage of a single profession, while the subject has as a whole significant coverage its works and its all activities are covered by third party, it is crystal clear. Persisting and focusing unneeded issue, displays some kind of personal interests under gaming the system and a kind of harassment, it should be stopped.Justice007 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work, but it's not clear at all how to resolve such concerns, much less that we have done so. Again, it's extremely unlikely anyone is going to take his mask or tower ideas seriously, so we're never going to have any sources beyond his own pr, which is what we have now. As for the patented condom wrapper: WP:PATENTS and the lack of sources beyond his own pr again suggest it deserves little or no mention. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Chelation therapy
A series of edits needs to be examined. The all-caps REDUCED is a dead giveaway of a POV editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Universal rotation curve
The AfD crashed and burned and I'm trying to deal with the damage. So far, we have had no help from editors except to say that because there are inline citations to Salucci's papers, we therefore have a reliable article. (It's total WP:ADVERT, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone). Help would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This looks dreadful but I don't have the physics knowledge to help much. The article is lacking anything about the extent to which these ideas are accepted in science. It also needs in the lede, a short clear statement about what the usual scientific explanation is. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, tried the merge again. We'll see if it is accepted this time around. jps (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Fluoride toxicity Merger
Over at WikiProject Chemistry, we've been trying to resolve some of the merge proposals for articles in our scope. One of these is a proposed merger of Fluoride toxicity into Fluoride. There's not a strong consensus either way at the moment, but it seems agreed that Fluoride Toxicity is (or was) overly reliant on non-WP:MEDRS compliant sources. As it stands now, I think the main question is whether, once non-WP:MEDRS-sourced statements are removed, there will be enough left over to justify its own article. Would anyone mind taking a moment to go through and assess to what degree it will be possible to clean up the article without gutting it? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 13:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian Lawton
Having difficulty finding any reliable sources for this guy. Goblin Face (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, he's the Architect of Rational Spirituality, a radical new "evidenced based" model of the soul - which seems to mean the usual paraphenalia of 'psychic research': lots of tales of out-of-body experiences and memories of past lives. His work has been acclaimed by luminaries such as "pioneering regression therapists" Edith Fiore and Hans TenDam. There're certainly lots of references to him in spirity-new-agey literature, but I can find nothing in sources beyond that. Looks like a candidate for AFD. Paul B (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

 * 2010 FTN
 * Discussion on the reliablity and use of Skeptic magazine as a source
 * Discussion on rewriting controversy section chronologically and including skeptical viewpoint
 * Discussion on rewriting controversy section chronologically and including skeptical viewpoint

How do we address cases where a fringe theory has become accepted science/medicine?

While EMDR is now well supported by medical research, but it was highly controversial from its inception in the late 1980s, through the 1990s and beyond, because of its inclusion of eye movements that were not supported by research at the time. Basically, the criticisms were that EMDR was just a combination of techniques that were already known to work, with an eye movement component added to make it appear original.

Recently, research has been published demonstrating the eye movement component has some effect. This has resulted in editors rewriting the article, especially the controversies section, to repeatedly highlight the new research and remove the skeptical viewpoint from the article (the topic is covered by reliable skeptical sources including Quackwatch, Skepdic, and Skeptic). While this is ultimately a NPOV/MEDRS problem, it would be helpful to know how similar problems have been addressed in other Wikipedia articles or on this noticeboard. We could also use help going over the medical research to see what criticism's have and have not been addressed by subsequent research. --Ronz (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If sceptics in this case have been proved wrong (which happens in many areas of scholarship), then the scepticiam should be included as part of the history of the reception of the idea. If the sceptical position now seems less likely to be true, we should give the reasons why the latest research suggests that. There are many cases in which matters are unresolved. For example the Homo floresiensis article has had to accommodate an increasing number of theories and arguments on both sides of the debate. The difficulty is knowing on what basis to give due weight to differing views. Paul B (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Anyone know of a MEDRS example? --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake; activities of Iantresman, etc.
An official representative for Sheldrake (maybe himself?) has opened a thread with some concerns, and of course they should be taken seriously and treated civilly. We need more eyes.


 * Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake

I also wonder if Iantresman is violating his topic ban in that thread? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You'll have to ask on WP:AE for an answer to the last question.
 * The focus on the lede is understandable, but the focus on the sources for the lede is not. The lede is supposed to summarize the article and so people should make references to the parts of the article which the lede is referencing and argue about the sources in the article body. jps (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently, re-retiring. jps (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGEGOAT
I wrote this essay to fill a little niche in the ecosystem of essays. Maybe the niche is already covered by an existing essay, or maybe it would be better as part of an existing essay, or maybe what it says is best left unsaid. In any case feedback/contributions are welcome. vzaak 20:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No complaints from me. That has been written well. Goblin Face (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda again
Here is a new proposal without the misplaced ref. Is there any reason to exclude this now based on Wikipedia policy? Talk:Ayurveda is the old discussion. A new discussion is at Talk:Ayurveda. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If its a new proposal should it be discussed on the article talk page before it comes to a NB?(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC))
 * It appears as though the purpose for posting on this noticeboard was to solicit input in that discussion. -Location (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

More sources for expanding the article can be found at Talk:Ayurveda. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That extensive post was removed because of copyright concerns. I have reposted the sources only. The original post is still in history. I am not posting a diff here until the copyright concerns have been addressed. Some content from these sources belongs in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson
New Editor deleting mass chunks of the article and accusing Wikipedia editors of being biased. Goblin Face (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * She's now at 4RR. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 04:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Also see the related Xenoglossy. IP keeps inserting links to psychical journals and massive undue weight to paranormal books. Goblin Face (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Near-death experience
New user adding spiritualist books to the lead and claiming "neuroscientists generally assume" or are making assumptions that the NDE is hallucination. Typical rant on the talk-page about 'bias' or skeptical sources in the article or about "materialism". The talk-page also reeks of sock-puppets. Any extra eyes on this appreciated. Goblin Face (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Functional medicine
Primary sources being used to insert content. Some eyes would help. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as jihadist
There's a running debate over multiple threads over the past month regarding how to deal with the term "jihadist" as a descriptor for militant group ISIL/ISIS. This descriptor is widely used in Western sources without qualification, however it is used by Al-Jazeera with "self-declared" and "self-proclaimed" qualifiers. A collective of 126 Islamic scholars that published an open letter described in the ISIL section saying that the group's actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality".

The currently active discussion can be found here. The choices, as I understand it, come down to how much weight should be given to this issue; whether is should be prominent in the lead, in the lead but in an efn, or just left as is in the #Criticism section. I recently introduced the idea that the Fringe guidelines may apply and we are looking for guidance as to how much weight this concept should be given.~Technophant (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:FRINGE applies. There isn't any fringe theory being advocated. It's really a question of vocabulary and language more than anything else. jps (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there anybody else that has a different opinion on this? There seems to be parts of the guideline that could be helpful in this matter.~Technophant (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Need admin on Talk:Homeopathy
We have another SPA User:TineIta who is engaging in disruptive editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and so forth - in clear violation of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on Talk:Homeopathy. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could swing by and verify whether a dope-slap is needed. TIA SteveBaker (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. A huge waste of time, with IDHT behavior and fringe POV pushing. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Typically, admins should be alerted either on WP:ANI or WP:AE (if arbitration sanctions are relevant). Anyway, I see the user in question was blocked for 31 hours by an admin for violating discretionary sanctions. jps (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No bureaucracy needed, this can go straight to enforcement by escalating blocks IMO. Having failed to persuade by cherry-picking factoids, the user is now being obdurate and disruptive. We don't need a rule to define how we apply the rules about rules, this is a pretty obvious POV-pusher. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Danube civilization
As far as I can tell, this is something sourced to basically fringe sources (from the archaeological perspective), mainly followers of Gimbutas with no archaeological qualifications. It's certainly a mess of original research with most of the sources and linked articles not mentioning a "Danube Civilization". Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You will not recognize any of the sources? I think that if you read the sources there will be no doubt. You will not recognize serious people working on the subject. You will not recognize that the terms Danube civilization and Old Europe are the same thing, just different names (depending of the scholar). You make it sound like it is me trying to make up some kind of fantasy?


 * Mihail Videyko is a leading expert on Trypillian culture and are employed at Institute of Archaeology National Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine. Do you not recognize him when he writes about Old Europe (the same thing as Danube civilization). In this source called "When we were in Old Europe"


 * Quoting him -


 * "Let’s start with the fact that “Old Europe” was initially constructed not by political scientists, politicians or even by journalists, but… by archeologists. This term has existed for a few decades and it is applied to quite different territories of our continent and in terms of time cultures which are considered to belong to Old Europe are separated from modern times by lots of time which amounts to six or eight millenniums. The civilized part of that “first” Old Europe included the eastern part of the Apennine peninsula, the Balkans, the territory of modern Hungary, the CzechRepublic, Slovakia, Romania, Moldova and part of the territory of Ukraine from the Carpathians to the Dnieper. Its separate oases also existed beyond the mentioned above borders and were connected, first of all, with the expansion of the bearers of the Neolithic culture of Linear Band Pottery. The Cucuteni-Trypillian civilization which is more known in Ukraine as the Trypillian archeological culture was part of Old Europe"
 * On page 17 you can see a map of Old Europe with the different cultures.


 * Do you not recognize the Brukenthal National Museum Sibiu where they write about the Danube civilization several times? One needs to understand that this civilization are known under different names, Old Europe or Danube civilization, Danube valley cultures and it consisted of many sub cultures like the Trypillian, Vinca, Varna and so on. Lactasamir (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So Lactasmir is now saying he created an article on the same subject as Old Europe (archaeology), an article that he knows exists. But his citing the paper above by Marco Merlini just proves my point that his main sources are fringe and not archaeologists. Merlini trained as a political scientist although he does have a PhD in “Neo-Eneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe: an Inquiry into the Danube Script” - not archaeology again.[ “Neo-Eneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe: an Inquiry into the Danube Script”]  - and like several of Lactasmir's sources, is from this "Institute of Archaeomythology" which promotes some of Marija Gimbutas's ideas and seems to have no one on its board who is actually an archaeologist. Lactasmir, besides having problems with copyvio, doesn't seem to accept that sources must actually discuss the subject of the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into me versus you Dougweller :) Please don't try to make me the bad guy here. you mention problems with copyvio? not anymore. I work hard not to copyvio and the last couple of months there have been none to my knowledge, and if there been some it is not intentionally. And please stop making it sound like the Institute of Archaeomythology are some kind of sect followers of Marija Gimbutas. She is a very respected scholar. And you disrespecting the members. I feel that you harassing me a little bit and I don't like it, I makes me fell very unpleasant. I have always been nice to you and other Wikipedians. As I told you before i am disabled and it is very hard for me just to be a part of Wikipedia without any help. So please when you write that i am poor in English, and that i dont' posses the knowledge about a subject, or that the article about the Danube civilization is a mess, it makes me very sad. I don't want to use more time in this discussion, it's to hard. I think it is very sad that there are no place for me in here without you correcting many of the edits i do.

If there are consesnsus then just merge the Danube civilization into Old Europe, i think there is a lot of good information. It is not because i don't want to discuss it anymore, but i can't, to hard. Have a nice day my friend :) Lactasamir (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you fully understand the points Dougweller is trying to make. His comments have nothing to do with being a bad guy, being nice or feeling sad. There is already an article on Old Europe, the english expression in Danube civilization is poor and the cited references are either not up to WP standards or don't use the term in question. So why have it?Nickm57 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. If the subject of the 'Danube civilization' article is the same thing as the 'Old Europe (archaeology)' article, we don't need another one, regardless of the legitimacy of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Veganism
This article has plainly had a lot of care taken with it, but some aspects make me uneasy from a WP:FRINGE perspective. For example: Would appreciate other views on whether there is anything here that should concern this noticeboard. Alexbrn talk 15:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The old idea that a vegan diet "prevent[s], and might reverse, certain chronic diseases, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers" is floated, but not framed within a mainstream context (The American Cancer Society, e.g. counsel that reliance on vegetarian-type diets is obviously not a good idea).
 * Some of the sourcing seems a bit iffy. Sanjay Gupta's senationally-entitled TV programme "The Last Heart Attack" is given space (albeit for no outright medical claims). But is that due?
 * We hear a lot about "disagreement within the vegan community" over whether the diet typically requires vitamin supplementation. But I get no clear sense of what the mainstream medical view on this question is (assuming there is one!)
 * The main health section is entitled "Health arguments" and begins with a nutritionist informing us of "growing body of scientific evidence" in favour of the vegan diet. This is backed by a four eight-works-in-one bundled reference covered by a editorial note saying that in some works "vegetarian" can be read to mean "vegan".

Boyd Bushman
Does this "Lockheed engineer reveals aliens exist" hoax deserve its own article, or just an entry at List of hoaxes? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Merger to list of hoaxes. BlueSalix (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This problematic article needs some attention. A Halloween traffic spike has brought in a majority of frivolous Keep votes at the the AfD, so the article is likely staying around -- but is currently a playground for SPA's inserting arguments and original research,frivolously requesting citations for obvious information, and even modifying newspaper quotes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This crap is being spread to other articles via - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Shall we first see if it is in fact a hoax before calling it crap? The 'doll' theory is just that until a manufacturer and additional information has been shown... isn't this journalism: to show the facts and let people judge for themselves?  The man is who he said he was... and that is the danger in what he has spoken in that video.  It is the occupation of some to dispute things by use of harsh language, name-calling and other lowbrow methods instead of letting the facts speak.  Let the facts be revealed and learn from them.HafizHanif (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine Network Pharmacology‎
This new article was nominated for deletion, but the template removed. I'm not sure if this is notable enough, or if it's good. Take a look. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See also: Articles for deletion/Traditional Chinese medicine Network Pharmacology -- Brangifer (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Friends of Science
Yikes. This astroturfing organization has an article which doesn't even seem to indicate that the organization itself is an advocacy group for promoting global warming denial. Probably a victim of the climate change wars of 5 years ago. Should this article exist? Can someone clean it up? I notice it claims certain members who are not currently listed on the website.

Very confusing. Very in need of help.

jps (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on reading the article, they don't deny that Global Warming exists... they simply disagree with the mainstream as to the causes. (not quite the same thing). In any case... given the number of sources in the article, I would say they are notable enough to have an article. They may be fringe, but they are WP:NOTABLE fringe. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Climate change denial" or "global warming denial" can mean a denial of the basic fact of climate change (which is a position that is being gradually pushed further to the fringe) or a denial that human activities are the most important cause: the okay-it's-happening-but-it's-not-our-fault position that most of the old it's-not-happening-at-all groups and special interests have retreated to in their rearguard action against science. (Read "climate change denial" in the same way you would read "AIDS denial"&mdash;the latter term doesn't just include individuals who don't believe the disease exists, it also includes the belief that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They are pure denialists. The web site boldly says "global warming stopped naturally 16+ years ago" Bhny (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So, what do people think of this framing ? I am trying to establish the context of this kind of organization. jps (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Tinley Park Lights
Can anyone find any WP:FRIND sources that would justify this article?

jps (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per Articles for deletion/Cape Girardeau UFO crash. - Location (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay: jps (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

National UFO Reporting Center
Articles for deletion/National UFO Reporting Center

Seems like almost like a WP:VANITY article to me.

jps (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like there are enough reliable sources that it would pass WP:ORG. - Location (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wales UFO sightings
Should this article exist?

jps (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to UFO sightings in the United Kingdom. Fails WP:EVENT due to the lack of persistent coverage in reliable sources. - Location (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Plane (esotericism)
Article is a serious mess and a problem with fringe claims. I have to admit the article is rather an embarrassment. No reliable sources on this article, only occult or credulous 'esoteric' books being cited. The article reads like 'factual' or an advert with these planes with fairies or spiritual beings on actually existing. I am not sure what to do here, I would suggest nuking a lot of the article and weeding out some of the dubious claims, not sure what would be left though? I doubt there are any mainstream scientific sources that have evaluated these fringe about different occult planes. The article seems to mostly use theosophy sources, not really reliable. There may be a struggle to find good sources. Any suggestions here? Goblin Face (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How bout this for a solution? jps (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem with that solution, in fact I would have suggested something similar. The problem is that many occult fans who edit these types of article related to spiritual planes will probably revert you. If this happens I will talk it to afd and see what others think. Goblin Face (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the source itself, but WikiProject Parapsychology/Encyclopedic articles indicates that the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, 4th edition, ed. J. Gordon Melton, Gale, 1996, ISBN 0-8103-5487-X has an article entitled "Worlds, planes or spheres (theosophy)" which might be of some use. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article needs work, but it is a notable subject in the context of a number of religious/philosphical systems. Redirecting to a narrower article is not a good idea. A better solution would be copyedit for a more encyclopedic tone and better sources.- MrX 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sergio Arcacha Smith
The subject of the first article was sought by Jim Garrison during his investigation of the assassination of JFK and the Trial of Clay Shaw. This was reported in the papers of the time and, as with almost everything else associated with assassination, made its way into the HSCA report. And if it's in the HSCA report, it makes it way into conspiracy books. As far as I can tell, the only way to make an article out of this is using either primary sources or fringe sources. Redirect to List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw? Thoughts? (Articles based on all of this are: Friends of Democratic Cuba, Crusade to Free Cuba Committee, and Cuban Revolutionary Council.) Thanks! - Location (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No significance outside of being named in trial records and the HSCA report, and what little there is can be covered at List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw. Redirected per WP:ONEEVENT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A Trolling Barnstar
Is there such a thing? I so need one to award to a first class troll right now. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. Alas, some people would probably appreciate being awarded such a thing, while the act of awarding it to someone who didn't appreciate it would seem to be also grounds for the awarder to receive one.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Muslims discovered America
See []. I thought this might be about Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad which was just edited by someone removing an unsourced statement (which sadly I can't source) but it seems to relate more directly to the Sung Document which is also mentioned at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, 1170s and 1178. Also mentioned in the article is Abu Bakr II. These could all benefit from more watchers. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Christopher Columbus was a Muslim. We learn something every day I suppose. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor was Leif Erikson a muslim... but some guys don't let facts get into the way of their idea of history. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Teleportation
Someone with a physics background needs to look at this. There are two sections especially including "Information-only teleportation" which seems to contain some fringe material. Goblin Face (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Fringe archaeology AfD
Articles for deletion/Natural Winter Solstice Alignment Cave in Manchester, Kentucky. I was going to bring another related article, Red Bird River Shelter Petroglyphs to the attention of this board also. Both have claims of Old World inscriptions. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Krippner
There seems to be a problem with this article, every month. A group of IPs keep white-washing the article and deleting any reliable sources like James Alcock etc. There seems to be a pattern here. Most recently claims to be Krippner himself, but another account has claimed this already, as has another IP. I would assume all these IPs are Krippner or associated with him, same pattern of removing the same sources. I have asked for him to seek consensus or at least discuss on the talk-page first but he has not done this.



The same sort of thing happened on the Sam Parnia article and it had to be locked. I don't have time to keep looking over this article as I am busy with other stuff right now but this pattern of editing seems to be constant and monthly. Goblin Face (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I requested temporary semi-protection for the page. If the problem persists down the road we may have to ask for permanent protection. As of now I don't see a reasonable justification for locking the article. I am also going to add some warnings to the respective talk pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the request for page protection was denied due to lack of recent activity. I have added the page to my watch list though and if anything weird pops up we can act on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for this. It seems to be a monthly thing. We will just wait and see what happens I guess. Goblin Face (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A substantial edit was made with a misleading edit summary, "m (Fixing reference error raised by ReferenceBot)" by . I have reverted it. I also removed a big chunk of puffery based only on primary sources with this edit. I posted a notice on the user's talk page here and commented on the article talk page here. has posted an unsigned comment at BLPN here which mentions a specific editor and copies material from that editor's user page without notifying of pinging that editor. It includes a personal attack on that editor ("a malicious person who is tampering", "the perpetrator") and an ill informed comment ("He has been making unauthorized changes to biographies.") Some input from editors active on this NB would probably be useful. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have requested temporary full page protection. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Xenoglossy
Fringe claims sourced to psychic journals being added to this article by, who has consistently re-added these fringe sources a number of times after being asked to seek consensus first (see talk-page). Goblin Face (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically a slow edit war. But it's on my watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This IP just keeps inserting the same fringe sources and ignoring everything that has been said, he now accuses Wikipedia editors of bias as they oppose the 'life after death theory'. His bulk edit every time just seems to mess up the article, it should be reverted but some unrelated editors need to look into this, I will not be further reverting him otherwise will be edit-warring problems. Goblin Face (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the 'good@ version today. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Fringe Theories on the Front Page?
The "On This Day" hook for today's anniversary of Dorothy Kilgallen's death looks really dicey to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I missed this. Per Selected anniversaries/November 8, the hook is:
 * "1965 – American journalist Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead in her New York City townhouse, in what was rumored to be a murder because of information she had regarding controversial stories such as the John F. Kennedy assassination."
 * I will admit that I am unfamiliar with the application of the specific guidelines regarding "On This Day", but it appears as though this would fail WP:OTDRULES #3 (i.e. "The event needs to be of moderate to great historical significance"), particularly since the idea that Kilgallen's death was a "suspicious" is a fringe theory started two years after her death. This appears to have originated with conspiracy theorists Mark Lane (author) and Penn Jones, Jr. and unquestionably spread by her biographer, Lee Israel; all of these sources are unreliable enough that their statements normally would require at least in-text attribution. Wikipedia should primarily reflect mainstream views and the mainstream explanation for her death was a combination of alcohol and barbiturates, and it was uncertain as to whether this was suicide or accidental. If Wikipedia is to keep this entry, it should state:
 * "1965 – American journalist Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead in her New York City townhouse from a combination of alcohol and barbiturates."
 * It appears as though this was initially added by TheCustomOfLife on November 7, 2004 (diff). Gentgeen, Zzyzx11, and Howcheng (all administrators) have been involved with editing the entry and moving it in and out of the queue, so I'm pinging them here in the event they wish to contribute. - Location (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's understandable that OTD would wish to attract readership with snappy prose, but they should not be using fringe theories as a form of journalistic "hook". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If they want the conspiracy theory hook, they should at least be up front about it: "1965 – American journalist Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead in her New York City townhouse from a combination of alcohol and barbiturates. Her death would later lead to conspiracy theories that she was murdered because she had information regarding controversial stories such as the John F. Kennedy assassination." Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's too wordy. — howcheng  {chat} 06:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, once you redact the fringe stuff there is nothing there that merits mention on the Front Page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. - Location (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur. Surely there's much more notable things that happened on this day.  Kilgallen was a notable journalist who should have an article, but her death is not an event that is even remotely comparable to the other events selected for that day. Why not replace it with this much more notable event: " The Bodleian Library, one of Europe's oldest libraries, opened at the University of Oxford."   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. My only edit regarding that hook was to hide it, as I didn't think it met the criteria to be on the front page. Looking back close to a decade now, I should have just removed it instead of hiding it. Gentgeen (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it from the active list. Maybe Howcheng can verify if I did this properly. - Location (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * On a side note I have added a Fringe Theories tag to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Lunatic charlatans
The "lunatic charlatans" of whom Jimbo spoke are still trying to rewrite the real world through Wikipedia. The most persistent WP:SPA has filed a mediation request. Given that the proponents openly admit in their own online petition that reflecting their POV would require the implementation and enforcement of new policies, and Jimbo's robust response, it would help if a couple of the regulars here could help the mediation volunteer to understand why this is not an issue that can be mediated, but a straightforward collision between The Truth™ and WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't find anything to add. This seems pretty clear. Please post relevant updates should this not be summarily dismissed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola
Just a heads up, on Talk:Ebola virus disease, there have been recent attempts to have various "hypotheses" and "traditional approaches" to ebola treatment added to the article, based on minimal/unreliable sourcing. It would be helpful if people could spend some time looking over articles and talk pages related to ebola, ebola treatment and ebola outbreaks to ensure that fringe theories are not being smuggled in to them. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the traditional approach was to die in agony, drowned in your own bodily fluids. Am I wrong about that suddenly? Guy (Help!) 21:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Byrzynski
I'm wondering what's really going on here with all these solo edits. There is no collaborative editing occurring here:

Diff of thirteen+ edits, ending with an "under construction" template, but no activity. I want to AGF, but this needs more eyes. Some of the edit summaries, especially the first one (23:22, November 7, 2014‎ ), are dubious, if not worse. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been suspicious, but hadn't found specifics before going to bed last night. we'll see. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's legit, but the author is not I think a native English speaker. I exchanged emails. Seems fine now anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Generation Rescue
A primary sourced draft whitewash has been posted to Talk:Generation Rescue. I think this article needs some eyes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MrBill3, you know I agree with your overall POV, but the disclaimer-type text (see reference #1) in the pro-autism articles gets to be excessive. -Location (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Boyd Bushman part 2
The AfD for this fringe and tabloid churnalism-sourced bio is being contested at Deletion_review. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cummins v Bond
Is this notable? The sources are terrible. Goblin Face (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. Basically every book on intellectual property law appears to cite it. But also yes, the article is pretty bad. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

‪Centre for Fortean Zoology‬


Lots of sciency-sounding claims, but very little, if anything, in the way of independent sources found for this org.



Part of a walled garden of CFZ articles linked above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the three additional articles should be redirected and the first article needs substantial work. This isn't my area of research expertise, perhaps can find some RS to improve this from an in universe promo piece to something like an encyclopedic article. I did some tagging perhaps that will draw some editorial effort. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The main article has been substantially cleaned up. CFZ Press and Weird Weekend have been deleted/redirected to the main article. The two bios will possibly require AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ted Gunderson
This bio probably needs some balancing. I get the impression that besides the one book he came to the public eye as a conspiracy theory pusher, but the odd structure of the article shows signs of trying to minimize this. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There do appear to be some issues. For example, the article states:
 * "He was most famous for handling the Marilyn Monroe and the John F. Kennedy cases."
 * The reference for that material states it a bit differently:
 * "Gunderson said his father worked on high-profile cases such as the death of Marilyn Monroe and the assassination of President John Kennedy." [emphasis mine]
 * If he worked in Los Angeles and Dallas, he might have browsed through case files at one point, but (per WP:REDFLAG) there are no other reliable sources verifying that he actually did work on those cases. If that cannot be verified as his "claim to fame", then I am wondering why he is notable. - Location (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * His actual claim to notoriety is his pushing the satanic ritual abuse hysteria. He was involved in the McMartin preschool trial and the Jeffrey R. MacDonald case, and he appeared as an "expert" in Geraldo's infamous expose. I haven't found enough material for a proper biography without using blogs. Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Integrative medicine
Some recent editing activity at this article has raised some questions about sourcing and weight. The views of fringe-savvy editors will no doubt be useful in informing the ongoing debate. Alexbrn talk 18:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC) (Add) to keep things neat, It would be nice if any follow-up discussion took place at Talk:Integrative medicine rather than bifurcating the discussion by starting here too. 19:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Above Top Secret
I can't believe it hasn't been nominated for deletion before now. I've AfD'ed it here. BlueSalix (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Near-death experience
See recent POV edits and huge rant on the talk-page. Goblin Face (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Red Bird River Shelter Petroglyphs
I have found a source on the real site which, compared with the article, makes clear just what a mess this is. I'm not utterly convinced that the rock now enshrined actually came from the NRHP site. If someone could find a reliable source which connects the one to the other it would help a great deal. Mangoe (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We have this semi-sorted: the rock is from a real site, the Red Bird River Petroglyphs, which as you can see has a very similar name. I'm up for rewriting this but I could use some eyes on dealing with the fringiness. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reactionless drive
Some new stuff has been added, and it looks like OR and fringe OR to me, but I am not sure, I could use a second opinion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that. The editor adding the new material has put a message on the Talk page, something about a 'startling discovery' that's about to alter mainstream understandings of physics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is usually red flag territory right there..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note the contributions of this editor.... Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone with more background in the topic is needed to evaluate if "curved spacetimes offer a notable exception to Newton's third law" and if this is notable enough to be in the article lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

deletion of editor comments in Talk
An ANI regarding the deletion of editor comments in Talk by fringe theories editors is active here. BlueSalix (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't bring ANI drama here - the appropriateness or otherwise of deletions of comments is entirely outside the remit of this notice board. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The 1001: A Nature Trust
The founder of the World Wildlife Fund got a 1000 rich people together to contribute to the WWF's financial endowment. Some believe that this group of people are a cabal that does nefarious things with all their money and power (e.g. ). I am posting to solicit additional opinions on the talk page as to whether a secret membership list reported by one source is appropriate for inclusion. Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I support this request for further opinions. You'll allow me to add our subject we discussed on the talk page:
 * The question we sere dealing with was the confidential membership list from the estate of British journalist Kevin Dowling, according to Wilfried Huismann (2014). User:Location regards both Huismann and Dowling as no reliable sources. On the other hand he (indirectly) supports the opinion of Ann O'Hanlon of the Washington Monthly (which he regards as reliable source), that we know the members of the 1001 club (otherwise it's not possible to state: "The secret list of members includes a disproportionate percentage of South Africans"). But User:Location did not explain yet, which source for the secret membership lists was used for this claim at all then. So it seems the known sources refer to Dowlings membership lists and Dowling itself is backed in important findings about the WWF by Stephen Ellis, a Dutch scientist, whom User:Location regards as reliable source. Nevertheless User:Location says, no one backs Dowling as reliable source. These arguments are not consistent - and the same is with the article, when Huismann's report about Dowling is neglected, but other reports about the same matter are regarded as reliable.
 * The question we were dealing with was not about the existing conspiracy theories about the aims of the "1001" club. User:Location and me are agreed about the requirement that we have to avoid penetration of WP by conspiracy theories. We can report about them if regarded as appropriate, but must not adopt them. I am completely aware about the fact, that we must thoroughly check, which users add what kind of information to the article and using what kind of sources. But the subject "authenticity of the 1001 membership lists provided by Dowling and cited in Huismann" has to be regarded independently from the question of alleged aims of the club etc. (I am not interested in such speculations anyway). It is a matter of factual claims, not of "believe" as User:Location put it above.
 * Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) + --00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is entirely unclear from the proposed edit (as laid out on Talk:The 1001: A Nature Trust) whether the source cited for the list, German journalist Wilfried Huismann, is saying that the people listed are members, or that they are included on a list of members 'found on the Internet'. If it is the latter, there is no way per WP:BLP policy that we can possibly include such names. If it is the former, there are two issues: firstly, is Huismann a reliable source for a confidential list (he seems to be a controversial figure with regards to his writings on the WMF), and secondly is it appropriate to add the list to the article. I think we need to know more about what Huismann wrote. Does he state that the list is authentic? And does the list include everyone Huismann names, or (as seems to be implied by the proposed wording) are the individuals named selected from the list Huismann provides as 'prominent amongst the world's political and financial elite' - if the latter is true, it appears to be WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I am sorry for my bad English. I should have used "available" instead of "can be found". Huismann considers the membership lists as authentic. He wrote (e.g. in Huismann 2014, p. 170) he got them from the estate of Kevin Dowling. And then he added, that they are even available on Internet now (he mentioned it, because some years before he still had to do several months of research for finding them). All names in the table I added, are mentioned by Huismann as included in the membership lists of 1978 and 1987 (p. 170-173). The Guardian/Observer, Süddeutsche Zeitung and others also cited members of "The 1001" as known. The Guardian put it as: "Names of the members that have slipped out over the years include Baron von Thyssen, Fiat boss Gianni Agnelli, and Henry Ford, as well as corrupt politicians such as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, the former president of the International Olympic Committee Juan Samaranch, and beer baron Alfred Heineken." (all names are included in Dowling's membership lists according to Huismann 2014 btw.). I don't know any source which claims, that Dowling's membership lists are fake. User:Location did not explain, why he considers this as part of a conspiracy theory. Even the WWF, who was strongly worried about Huismann's massive criticism against it in the 1st German edition ("Schwarzbuch WWF") in 2011/2012 and who went to court therefore, did not call the membership lists as cited by Huismann into question. The book as we see it now and as it has been translated into English, survived all the attacks of the WWF.
 * So the membership lists seem to be challenged by no-one but User:Location up to now. Just because you mentioned it: When you call Huismann a controversial figure with regards to his writings on the WWF than because the WWF attacked Huismann. Not third parties attacked Huismann. To the contrary the German media defended Huismann against the methods of the WWF. And this is also the case for conservative media as Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung. So the WWF itself is regarded as "controversial" party meanwhile and it's statements have to be checked carefully. I recommed the findings of Dutch Stephen Ellis concerning the role of the WWF in South Africa, as also pointed out by Dowling, from whom Huismann got the membership lists. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Assuming that you are correct above (and I have no reason to doubt it), there is still the question as to whether the article should include the list of members - there is clearly an argument that it is undue if only Huismann (amongst credible sources) considers naming them significant. The Guardian piece you cite quotes Huismann as saying "The '1001 club' is still important for the WWF, even though it's not a secret central committee. I hate conspiracy theories, but I'm convinced that the discreet '1001 club' still influences the strategic decisions of the WWF, because many of its members are important players in global and powerful financial and industrial corporations that rule the planet" which actually does amount to a conspiracy theory, and one that we arguably shouldn't be promoting without evidence that it is taken seriously by other commentators - it should be noted that the Guardian piece quotes a WWF spokesman as saying that they "are now much choosier about which interests we accept donations from and which interests we work with". That may or may not be true, but we shouldn't be echoing Huismann's version alone: the Guardian makes it clear that there is more than one side to this story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * One other point: there are serious WP:BLP issues involved in naming individuals from a list which our article suggests includes "a disproportionate percentage of South Africans, all too happy in an era of social banishment to be welcomed into a socially elite society. Other contributors include businessmen with suspect connections, including organized crime, environmentally destructive development, and corrupt African politics." While we aren't stating outright that the particular individuals concerned fall into such groups, a reasonable reader might assume that we we were implying this - why else would we be naming such particular individuals? If the list were to be included, there would have to be a fundamental rewording to avoid any such implication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the point. I do support User:Location that we have to avoid any promotion of conspiracy theories. That is, why I stick on the subject of the membership lists only and why I do not support any assessment of the members's "quality" (affiliation, habit, ...) or even of alleged club's aims circulating on the internet. And this is why I don't understand that User:Location regards the (already in this WP article existing) Washington Monthly's quote "a disproportionate percentage of South Africans, all too happy in an era of social banishment to be welcomed into a socially elite society. Other contributors include businessmen with suspect connections, including organized crime, environmentally destructive development, and corrupt African politics." (that means an inferential claim, which can't be verified easily) as legitimate information in WP, but he denies my addition of the membership lists (that means a factual claim , which can be checked), which he regards as not justified or reliable information. This is not consistent. Vice versa it makes more sense.
 * why else would we be naming such particular individuals? If the list were to be included, there would have to be a fundamental rewording to avoid any such implication.: The reason, why we should choose those particular individuals, is easy to explain. Huismann put it like this (p. 170): "Some of the names I was seeing for the first time, but most of them sounded familiar, because they were prominent amongst the world's political and financial elite.". Maybe I sould have mentioned it in my edit, but I did not, assuming it would be obvious: all cited members are very prominent or influential persons . We can add less known members as well of course if wished. For example we could add more personalities from the German business elite, such as the bankers, but I don't know whether readers in the en:WP are the same interested in persons like Robert Pferdmenges and Hermann Josef Abs (cf. Süddeutsche Zeitung) as German readers might be. But of course we can reword the text connected with the lists to avoid undesirable suggestive effects.
 * The Guardian piece you cite quotes Huismann [...quote...] which actually does amount to a conspiracy theory, and one that we arguably shouldn't be promoting without evidence that it is taken seriously by other commentators [...]: User:Location stressed this quote in the Guardian's article (which was my own reference), too, to explain his doubts for the membership lists. But: 1. This also can be treated as Huismann's legitimate working assumption, since his book's chapter (2014, p. 170-174) according to the membership lists does not includes this claim. And 2: Anyway the question, whether the membership lists are authentic or not has to be considered independently from what anyone may conclude in a second step. If we try to avoid any information that could promote neuronal WWF-critical associations of readers, this no longer would represent quality assurance. It would mean self-censorship. Exactly this is, what the German media criticized when Amazon and others removed Huismann's book some years ago, because of the pressure made by WWF. This should be history now. In Germany it is at least. Amazon now even prints the English version ("Printed in Germany by Amazon Distribution GmbH Leipzig", I read in the English 2014 edition). Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making - it is only Huismann (of the sources you have cited) that thinks naming this long list of individuals is significant. That doesn't seem to me to be adequate grounds for inclusion unless other credible sources also consider the membership list as important. And no, we cannot simultaneously make statements about the membership including 'businessmen with suspect connections' etc and list members without seriously risking violating WP:BLP policy - which is policy, and accordingly has to be followed, whether you consider it 'self-censorship' or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And can you clarify what you mean when you write "we could add more personalities from the German business elite"? I had earlier asked whether the list in the article was Huismann's complete list - and I thought that you had indicated that it was. Is it the complete list, or isn't it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it the complete list, or isn't it? The 1001 club includes 1001 members (the number is fix - in case a member dies, the next aspirant succeeds). The list I added in my edit sums up those selected names, Huismann listed in Huismann 2014, p. 170, 172f. On page 172 Huismann provides the facsimile of an extract of the membership list. There you can find further names of members. Media reports of Huismann researches (such as by SZ) mention further members. All names I listed in my edit come from Huismann 2014, p. 170, 172f.
 * "cannot simultaneously make statements about the membership including 'businessmen with suspect connections' etc and list members without seriously risking violating WP:BLP policy": As already mentioned, I did not support the declaration 'businessmen with suspect connections'. As far as I understood User:Location regards this as hint at existing allegations, but better ask himself, why he supports this. This is not my subject here. I just want to add an extract of the membership list as given by Huismann. This is what important media outlets report and I don't see why WP should block this information. But if you don't want an extract of members mentioned in the same article with the expression 'businessmen with suspect connections' why should we delete the extract of members then (a factual claim)? Wouldn't it be better to delete the expression 'businessmen with suspect connections' (an inferential claim)?
 * it is only Huismann (of the sources you have cited) that thinks naming this long list of individuals is significant.: I don't consider 34 out of 1001 members as a "long list", but of course this is a Wiki and when the authors come to the result we should limit the extract to - let's say - 5 or 8 names, we can do this as well. Why not. I chose these 34, because all names in this list of Huismann's ectract represent very well known and important persons. I did not see a reason to reduce it. But of course we can do that, if the WP authors see here a necessity for it.
 * seriously risking violating WP:BLP policy - which is policy, and accordingly has to be followed, whether you consider it 'self-censorship' or not: No, WP:BLP policy is not made for legitimation of self-censorship but helps to secure quality standards of information. Up to now no-one has cited a single source that claims, that Dowling's membership lists cited in Huismann are products of a conspiracy theory. It would be a constructed claim to state this. I don't see any infringement of WP:BLP by listing about thirty worldwide very prominet "1001" members of the 1970s and 1980s out of one thousand. You know why I mentioned "self-censorship"? Even Politicians such as de:Burkhardt Müller-Sönksen (media-policy spokesperson of the FDP) called the reaction of the book wholesale to the pressure of WWF "self-censorship". The de:Deutsche Journalistinnen- und Journalisten-Union (Union of German Journalists) even accused the WWF for "censorship". Greetings --,Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Selecting 34 individuals from the list on the basis that you consider them "very well known and important persons" is original research. We do not construct lists based on our own personal opinions. And you have still not provided any evidence that anyone but Huismann considers this list significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did no original research here. I did not select 34 individuals from the list, but cited the source Huismann, who did the selection. I did not construct them as beeing very well known and important persons. My (deleted) edit just listed them without commenting. Only here in the discussion I mentioned that Huismann selected them because of their importance and prominence, and everyone can see this following the wikilinks to the names.
 * First you said we cannot just list some names without explaining why. That's why I explained you (here in the discussion, not in the article) that just a look at the seletcted names shows that those people are all prominent persons. Now you say I did original research by just considering them as very well known and important persons. To "consider" a person well known without stating it in the article is original research? Are you serious? Look at huismann's list and decide yourself whether you consider them as well known or not: 1. Karim Aga Khan IV. (billionaire Muslim spiritual leader) 2. Giovanni Agnelli (Fiat), 3. Lord Astor of Hever (president of The Times of London), 4. Henry Ford II, 5. Stephen Bechtel (Bechtel Group (USA)), 6. Berthold Beitz (Krupp), 7. Martine Cartier-Bresson, 8.Joseph Cullman III (CEO Philip Morris), 9. Charles de Chambrun, 10. H.R.H. Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, 11. Sir Eric Drake (General Director of British Petroleum), 12. Friedrich Karl Flick (German-Austrian industrialist and billionaire), 13. Manuel Fraga Iribarne (Minister of Information of Franco's dictatorial regime in Spain), 14. C. Gerald Goldsmith, 15. Ferdinand H. M. Grapperhaus (Dutch Undersecretary), 16. Alfred Heineken, 17. Lukas Hoffmann (Hoffmann-La Roche), 18. Lord John King (British Airways), 19. Sheikh Salim bin Laden (elder brother of Osama bin Laden), 20. John H. Loudon (CEO Shell), 21. Daniel K. Ludwig (U. S. shipping magnate and billionaire), 22. José Martínez de Hoz (Minister of the Economy under the military dictatorship of Jorge Rafael Videla), 23. Robert McNamara (Vietnam-era U.S. Secretary of Defense), 24. Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller (shipping magnate), 25. Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, 26. Keshub Mahindra (India's Mahindra Group), 27. Harry Frederick Oppenheimer (Anglo American Corporation), 28. David Rockefeller (Chase Manhattan Bank), 29. Agha Hasan Abedi (President of BCCI Bank), 30. Tibor Rosenbaum (BCI, Geneva), 31. Baron Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild, 32. Juan Antonio Samaranch (president of the IOC), 33. Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire's longtime dictator), 34. Peter von Siemens (Siemens), 35. Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, 36. Joachim Zahn (Daimler-Benz.
 * First you said, the list is too long for Wikipedia, now you say, a selection means original research. Okay, no problem at all. We can cite the names listed in the Guardian then, if you prefer that. It is short (as you wanted it) and it is a another source, as you wanted it. And Guardian considers this as significant to mention it. it. What do you think about that? Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC) --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The primary reason for rejecting the long list is not because it is long, but because it appears to be research that originated with one unreliable source (Dowling) and was reiterated by another (Huismann). (You have claimed that Dowling is reliable or that we have not shown that he is unreliable. On this point, the burden is on you to show that he had a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. We do not default to accepting someone as a reliable source, particularly when they have made WP:REDFLAG claims. The fact that Huismann is reiterating that material in the context of his own WP:REDFLAG claims is sufficient for rejection.) Regarding the material from The Guardian, do you have a specific proposal?. - Location (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is "we", is it you in person, User Location? You are not WP. You are one author, not more, the same as me and everyone here. I'm working here since years, and I always used reliable sources and fought for quality standards in this encyclopedia. Do you regard Huismann as biased and not reliable and do you use WWF as reliable source at the same time? That's not logic. But worse: you did not cite a single source to proove that Huismanns claims according to WWF are WP:REDFLAG claims. This seems to be your personal view. Even the WWF does not attack the authenticity of the membership lists, but you do? When Ellis cites the 1987 membership list which he possesses a copy of, how can you state that Huismann is using an incorrect copy? It isn't me who tries to make original research here. I hope you don't try to do so. Just accept that there are reliable sources which prove the identities of more than 1000 club members of 20th century. We got it, science proved it, you just have to accept, this is a free encyclopedia without censorship. You may not like the result, but we know members of the 1001 Club and we should report important examples as given in the literature. When you start reading the sources instead of just repeating your first position, you will see it yourself. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your issues have been addressed ad nauseam here and on the article's talk page by myself and at least one other editor. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now applies. - Location (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, you misused your own sources to construct your very private claims, based on nothing. And 20 minutes after I edited the article, using your own sources, revealing that you used them wrong, you showed up here for the first time again and tried to save your face. Your are right. It was useless to discuss there and here with you. You already had the result in your mind, before reading a single source. And you kept it after reading them. Don't fear long discussions any more. Regarding the material from The Guardian, do you have a specific proposal? You ask me that and then escaping to ad nauseam lamentation. Read your untenable claims and compare with the sources. No more is needed. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have little appetite for conspiracy theories; even less so when there are BLP implications. The current version of the article needs either a revert or an axe. bobrayner (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Bobrayner, this is about the membership lists of the WWF's 1001 club, so far known according to reliable sources. I even had to look for "BLP" via search engines in order to understand, what you are talking about at all. And first match I found (typing "BLP wikipedia") was this one (https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg96140.html), where it is said that someone called "Andy the Grump" "teach these wikinazis a thing or two about objectivity". It's fine to hear that, but I never heard about this BlackLight Power before and I don't know whether "Andy the Grump"'s or yours or onyone else's "BLP" fight is a good thing to deal with or not. But again: this discussion paragraph deals with the issue of the 1001 club's membership lists only. And I used only scientific sources [to edit this article]. That's why I wonder at what kind of constructions, imaginations, or myths this may trigger in your mind. Remember, this is about WWF's history, South Africa's history maybe, but not about any weird conspiracy theories, you may try to excoriate me with. It's only necessary to read the existing sources (R. Bonner, S. Ellis (& G. ter Haar), M. Ramutsindela, M. Spierenburg, H. Wels, R. Duffy, G. Murr....; some of them already cited in the en:WP's article), but - please - not to contribute with exuberant phantasy. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

List of events at Soldier Field
Some of you may recall that in August I brought up Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy, a non-existent plot fabricated by Abraham Bolden after he was arrested on bribery charges. Per WP:FRINGE, I removed material related to this in List of events at Soldier Field (diff), however, the material was recently restored, fringe sources and all, with a minor wording change (diff). Another set of eyes would be helpful. Thanks! - Location (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Igor Witkowski
A Polish secret Nazi antigravity weapon conspiracy theorist known only for being mentioned in one of Nick Cook's books. I can find no secondary RS for Igor Witkowski that are independent of the conspiracy claims, and there have been past attempts at using primary sources to create a pseudobiography, so Articles for deletion/Igor Witkowski. Also I would appreciate someone looking over the sources at Die Glocke, they seem rather thin, and depend heavily on conspiracy theory books by Adventures Unlimited Press. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Publication suggesting Wikipedia has been suckered into a black hole of scientific error....
Bouncing around the Internet I came upon a publication via Google Scholar titled "Thermodynamics≠ Information Theory: Science's Greatest Sokal Affair," seemingly claiming a widely practiced and modernly well-recognized misuse of terminology relating to information theory, thermodynamics, and entropy, and calling out Wikipedia as a propogater of this error, specifically pointing up various Wikipedia pages as examples of such. I don't know how seriously this ought to be taken or if it has been previously addressed since the publication dates to 2012 (but not to my knowledge, having tinkered here and there with some pages pronounced upon). DeistCosmos (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Libb Thims the author of that paper, is the same person as "Sadi Carnot" . He is a fringe proponent and perm banned Wikipedia user. He went by the user Sadi Carnot (and other sock puppets), many old incidents about him on the admin board. Has all been discussed before. Not a reliable source for anything. Goblin Face (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Madoc
See which I reverted. Editor User: ‎Doug Coldwell removed sourced text saying it was pov. The section heading was also changed from "sources of the legend" to "sources", although multiple sources call it a legend. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Still needs more eyes, I've taken a source to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Black Monk of Pontefract
This has been raised before. I think a suitable redirect to poltergeist would do. Two newspaper sources I don't think are enough to establish an entire article, and numerous fringe sources are re-added now and again. Goblin Face (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that notability in RS derives from the movie, I have merged it to When the Lights Went Out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gustav Geley
Mass content added to this article by new IP, in some cases copied from other articles and numerous fringe sources added. Goblin Face (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the IP was blocked for a month for block evasion, having admitted that he/she was a blocked editor at the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The IP is tied to a long-term abuse case; I have proposed a site ban. Manul 14:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen
See the discussion on fringe conspiracy theories at Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. (Belated signature -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC))
 * Who knew a bio of a columnist was being used as a WP:COATRACK for all kinds of fringe theories? On my watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I'll comment there. - Location (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The article appears to be object of some ongoing and rather aggressive PROFRINGE editing. I've been doing a lot of reverting. Personally I think the whole article needs a rewrite with all of the conspiracy stuff chopped down to essentials and relegated to a single section per WP:DUE. In the meantime extra-eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Fringe DYK
As some might know we have had problems in the past with fringe positions being pushed in DYK, eg by Paul Bedson (who I think is still around editing). See my comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae. I've tried to make Cronica Walliae less pov - it was suggesting that Madoc existed and travelled to America. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Template issue sorted, Doug Coldwell has accepted a different hook that I suggested. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab
User who has already been using two IPS trying to delete reliable sources from the article calling them biased, skeptical or written by atheists etc. Lot's of ranting on the talk-page. Goblin Face (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Arguments at Talk:Atlantis
Really need more participants there, it's getting pretty heated and I don't have time right now. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Con
Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What I find is three local media "news of the weird" articles, a couple of blog hits of the same ilk, and a very passing reference in a book. Make of it what you will. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at the one book reference again it actually has enough for a very stubbish article. Not sure what to make of notability, though. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Atlantis
Attempt to remove 'allegory' and 'pseudohistory' from lead by an SPA, I think more participants are required. See Talk:Atlantis. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several new editors on the article talk page whose only interest is promoting the idea that Atlantis was real. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Joseph P. Farrell
One of the legions of authors from Adventures Unlimited Press ... any thoughts? BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a single reliable source for him. Should be deleted. Goblin Face (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately he's a magnet for fringe theories editors so the AfD will probably fail. BlueSalix (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the results of Articles for deletion/Joseph P. Farrell and have a related question pertaining to this author. I have seen references to or material cited to Farrell in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Kecksburg UFO incident, Nazi UFOs, and Die Glocke; however, there is no coverage of the author, his books, or his claims in "reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". As an example, the following passage appears in the Other published theories section of John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories:
 * Joseph P. Farrell's LBJ and the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy (2011) attempts to show multiple interests had reasons to remove President Kennedy: The military, CIA, NASA, anti-Castro factions, Hoover's FBI and others. He concludes that the person that allowed all of these groups to form a "coalescence of interests" was Vice President Lyndon Johnson. ISBN 978-1-935487-18-0
 * The only way to cite this material is to cite the primary source. Per WP:FRINGE (WP:ONEWAY) and/or WP:REDFLAG, is this permitted? - Location (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read one of Farrell's books (Reich of the Black Sun, about money laundering in Europe). Approximately half of the endnotes he used as sources in it were to a Geocities website that claimed its information came from an 10,000 year old Visigoth warrior it had channeled. I think any source linked to Farrell should be removed. BlueSalix (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

John Coleman (author)
One-world government CT. Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have sufficient independent sources to sustain a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted too. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alien hair analysis
Can someone review these article about UFOs, alien abduction, and DNA analysis of alien hair (!) and and see if they need to be deleted, merged, or if they can be re-written and sourced in compliance with WP:FRINGE? A quick search found only coverage in the usual UFO/conspiracy website, but given that Chalker's book was published by a mainstream publisher there may be legitimate reviews and debunking buried underneath. Abecedare (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bill Chalker
 * Peter Khoury Incident
 * Reduced Peter Khoury Incident to what RS will support. It still may not meet notability guidelines. Bill Chalker may meet notability requirements, but the article would have to be greatly reduced (I see a huge list of non-notable passing mentions in the refs) and written in an objective tone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also look into Antônio Vilas Boas. A few good sources and a lot of fringe sources. And the infobox is definitely being used as an NPOV workaround. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Then he had an urge to go to the bathroom. He realized that his penis felt very painful. Standing in the bathroom, he pulled back the foreskin and found two thin blond strands of hair wrapped tightly around.": Quite creative. Logos (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have nominated Peter Khoury for deletion. bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have to appreciate that they forced him to mate with them. Apparently the hairs had both "Chinese type" DNA and "Basque/Gaelic" DNA, which cannot be explained. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Exorcism as Pseudoscience
There is some controversy on the Exorcism article as an editor is attempting to label the practice a form of pseudoscience. See the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't change the title of the thread unless you make an entry indicating you are doing it. The change had a POV tone to it. I would prefer to keep the discussion neutral and oriented on policy and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk)  05:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Exorcism is clearly a religious practice, and as such should not be labeled a pseudoscience. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It does not make scientific claims. It makes claims that are certainly non-scientific and may be anti-scientific, but that's a separate issue. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. Trying to stretch 'pseudoscience' to cover every belief that can't be justified through science is highly questionable (and arguably unscientific...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Though, that said, specific forms may well come under pseudoscience (or, more properly, pseudomedicine)> E.g. "I cast out the demon of Cancer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the article talk page, but the above comment does seem to me to raise the issue of what some might consider overuse in some of the charismatic/pentecostal/non-denominational Christian groups, which I seem to remember now have been said to have rather unusually quick recourse to this procedure. I have a feeling that this topic could probably easily be spunout into multiple articles, and it might make sense to describe it as pseudoscientific in some particular instances or spinout articles, but I don't think in general that it is used in the west as pseudoscientific. Regarding African cults of affliction and similar groups, those would probably be different cases. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Electronic harassment
New media section gives undue weight to content sourced to a conspiracy TV show. New Incidents section synthesizes a list of "targeted individuals" based on Press TV coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Near-death experience
Please see this article. Problems with editor inserting fringe sources into the lead, he is also using the talk-page as a forum. Regarding near-death studies due to lack of interest I will attempt to fix this also. Goblin Face (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dulce Base
I'm going to stop reverting an insistent IP that keeps inserting a plug for a book that's so obscure and unreliable its pages consist of b&w xerox copies spiral bound together. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Info on Hamilton here, he writes "I don't see how you can help avoid the spiritual and psychic connections. All ET lifeforms have been known to communicate telepathically, and may have precognitive abilities. Their awareness might be greater than ours when it comes to matters of the spiritual universe." Nuff said. We shouldn't be citing him on Wikipedia. Goblin Face (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed it - self-published book by an IT specialist seriously fails WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's WP:RSOPINION. Relevant, because he's responsible for 90% of all material on Dulce. Seems self-evident, since his material is quoted and referenced by every writer on the subject. 121.72.200.237 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This and Paul Bennewitz need to be merged, if nothing else. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Jim Hoffman
911 CT. Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to say no. There really doesn't even seem to be a narrative of his involvement in the 9/11 stuff. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:911ct
List of "notables" in this is rather sketchy, plus the template seems to be dropped on the page on anyone who ever expressed a 9/11 doubt. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Seems to be a form of spam to draw attention to the 911 conspiracy cause, but I'm not sure what to do about it. - Location (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken this to WP:BLP/N for further discussion there. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

World Wireless System
Help wanted at World Wireless System. This article is about Nikola Tesla's proposed wireless power transmission technology (see also Wardenclyffe Tower). The article is filled with original research, speculation, synthesis, lengthy quotes and quite a few primary sources. Any help trimming and copy editing the article so that it conforms to WP:FRINGE would be appreciated.- MrX 20:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. This article is a disgrace.  I'm reading up on Tesla's work, and plan to help edit the article in the near future.  GLPeterson who wrote World Wireless System has been WP:PUSHing this material at several other articles, and has an ANI complaint against him.   I just finished rewriting more of his WP:FRINGE Tesla stuff at Wireless power. -- Chetvorno TALK</i> 16:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any way this article can be trimmed or copy-edited. It is an unrealized and untested theory that appears to depend on luminiferous ether and a misinterpretation of the ionosphere. At best it contains a few paragraphs worth of usable information that could be included in Wardenclyffe Tower or Nikola Tesla. This article, however, appears to be a candidate for AfD. Roches (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I would go along with that. GLPeterson originally created this article as a WP:POVFORK from Wardenclyffe Tower so he could spread his theories, and Fountains of Bryn Mawr, who agrees with us, has suggested merging it back in.-- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I recently edited a lot of similar WP:FRINGE Tesla material by GLPeterson out of the Wireless power article, and he is constantly reinserting it, so I could use some help on that page reverting it.    I think it is time GLPeterson had some sanctions against him. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wireless power bothers me even more than World Wireless System (WWS), so I'll try to help with that too. Deletion of the WWS article would affect legitimate efforts to balance the NPOV content, but I think it's the best way to keep the subject in proportion to its notability. If it's an article, I can only foresee point-by-point conflict over whether any of the hundreds of claims should be included. Roches (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Qigong fever
This popped up in the New Pages feed. There's one sentence at the end that acknowledges that qi may not be a scientific concept ("Prof. He Zuoxiu (b.1927) stood as ardent opponent of qigong practices, claiming them to be pseudo-scientific."), but other than that it's entirely in-universe, wth sentences like: "Powerful trigger for widespread of the qigong vogue was made by Yan Xin 严新 (b.1949, Sichuan), whose activity was tested in several scientific laboratories of Beijing: researchers at Qinghua University publicized results of experiments showing that Yan's 'external qi' had changed the molecular structure of water at a distance of 2,000 km."

Kolbasz (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

George Gurdjieff
I have removed a chunk of the really gross bloat and promotional link spam from George Gurdjieff although the article remains highly promotional. If history is any guide the followers will shortly launch an attempt to restore all or most of it. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Energy (esotericism)


This article is subject to frequent- drive-by tagging with no engagement on Talk. It may require semiprotecting to get the anon(s) to engage and explain their problem. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The Hum
Here we have a bunch of similar phenomenon discussed in what at first glance seems a sober article. I got there because it has turned up at the HAARP article (and I'm sorry to have to say this, but the feds are looking to transfer this to some academic group, so it may get switched back on again, raining fresh fringiness from the skies). There are forks off it of various locales. The title is a bit of a problem, but not sure what could be done that's better. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe Background hum or Natural background hum might work. The first title doesn't seem to be in use right now. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Known in the UK as low frequency noise. Some is down to tinnitus, some apparently not. The article as-is contains crankery. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: the literature always seems to refer to it as low frequency noise, but tabloids call it The Foo Hum (for different values of Foo). It is exploited by wind farm opponents. I redirected but was reverted (I have left a note on the user's talk page explaining that the title is WP:OR and the content represents a rather one-sided view of something whihc, in the literature, is not called this. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, there you have it. The title is WP:OR, the content is redundant to infrasound (this is a WP:POVFORK, basically, but fanbois are determined not to have redirect, instead demanding AfD (even though no deletion is necessary). Hence Articles for deletion/The Hum. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Blacklight Power
Some recent questionable IP activity at this article; may need eyes. Alexbrn talk 19:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This was semi-protected temporarily, but now that's lifted the problematic edits have resumed. More eyes needed. Alexbrn talk 13:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not returned and there is nothing wrong with my contributions. They are properly sourced and relevant. To give some examples:


 * 1: Your idea is that peer reviewed articles co-authored by the subject of a wikipedia article may not be mentioned is in error. One may even use the subjects homepage or his self-published book to source statements by him or her. These are co-authored papers published in peer reviewed journals. I'm not using them to source anything beyond their existence.


 * example 2: There is a section about Rowan University. They are clearly involved with BLP. As there was no coverage after 2002 I have updated that section with more recent information. Using the University Annual Report to show that BLP is funding their research is perfectly acceptable. There is nothing unreliable about these reports. I chose not to use any of these sources for their involvement:


 * 2009 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/blacklight-power-returns-with-more-lab-validation/
 * 2009 http://wayback.archive.org/web/20100205191449/http://njbiz.com/article.asp?aid=78895
 * 2008 http://venturebeat.com/2008/12/11/blacklight-power-lands-first-license-agreement-for-electricity-from-water/
 * 2008 http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/21/blacklight-power-bolsters-its-impossible-claims-of-a-new-renewable-energy-source/
 * 2014 http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/14/blacklight-power-validation-by-rowan-university-video/
 * 2010 http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2392/have-the-rowan-university-hydrino-findings-been-replicated-elsewhere
 * etc


 * The test reports published on the company website are obviously not usable either. This however doesn't mean it is not allowed to document their involvement. The funding provides valuable context to whatever official publications may appear in the future. It is perfectly neutral to state that BLP spend $600,000 on research grants.


 * example 3: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The most important aspect is that there are prominent published sources debunking the claims. The collection of childish remarks offers no added value beyond this.


 * example 4: It is also acceptable to document who the investors are in the funding section of the article.


 * 84.106.11.117 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor insisting that we cannot refer to Madoc as the "legendary Prince Madoc" at Cronica Walliae
See Talk:Cronica Walliae where User:Doug Coldwell says "The word "legendary" has been taken out of the article since the article is a description on Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 historical manuscript. The exact wording is furnished from Llwyd's manuscript for reference. The book itself can be obtained in a University of Wales reprint by Professor Ieuam M. Williams as was previously published by David Powel's 1584 book Historie of Cambria. The issue is not about truth, but if it has been published previously by a relaible source -> see WP:TRUTH. There are no references that Llwyd's Cronica Walliae is a fictional work, but there are several references by reliable sources that his manuscript is a historical work.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the article is a description on Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 historical manuscript, NOT a debate on the validity of Madoc.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)" Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * See British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533-1707 edited by Brendan Bradshaw, Peter Roberts "It was Humphrey Lhuyd who, in his ‘Cronica Walliae’ (c. 1559), first publicised the legend that the Welsh prince Madog ab Owain Gwynedd (fl. 1170) had sailed across the Atlantic and discovered America." I've used a source he did to say 'supposed', but this is probably better. There's also The new companion to the literature of Wales - Page 176 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WoMYAAAAIAAJ
 * Meic Stephens - 1998 - ‎Snippet view -"The work, entitled Cronica Walliae, was written in 1559 and began with the 'Description of Wales', a section written ... It was Llwyd who first referred to the legend of *Madoc and provided the first clear exposition of the theory of the Early British ." I didn't say that Llywyd's work was fiction. It was historical but incorporated legends. As the article says, he believes the Welsh were from Troy. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Brought this up at WP:NPOVN as Coldwell continues to remove any suggestion this wasn't historical and writes about it as though it was. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ike Altgens
Ike Altgens is currently a good article nominee at Good article nominations. While I think the subject is worthy of a stand-alone article, there are various issues with sourcing that violate WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:COPYVIO. First, there are a number of fringe sources that lend undue weight to an alleged controversy regarding his photograph (e.g. Trask, Fetzer, Groden, Marrs). Secondly, primary source material from the Warren Commission is used to synthesize support for the alleged controversy. Thirdly, there are a couple YouTube videos that appear to violate our copyright policy. Thoughts? - Location (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed 's excellent concerns and suggestions, and I would like to know what else I can/should be doing to get this once-Featured Article (under admittedly less stringent 2007 standards) over the GA hump. TIA. :) &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Rense and Rense.com
While I do see mention in reliable sources, I am wondering if either Jeff Rense or Rense.com (which redirects to the first) have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subjects to warrant a stand-alone article. Relevant guidelines are Notability (people)/WP:ENTERTAINER and Notability (media)/WP:BROADCAST. Related to this, there appears to be some discussion regarding the reliability of www.rense.com in the Archives. - Location (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The article on Rense describes how he worked for several TV stations, including in an on-screen role, and he has also hosted broadcast radio programs. That seems to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria, especially as he worked for media that meet WP:BROADCAST. The notability of a person does not affect the reliability of any content they have produced. Roches (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ENTERTAINER does not appear to cover local television reporters and anchors, but a radio host might be covered under "opinion makers". I'm not sure if it would be necessary for his program to pass WP:RPRGM first. - Location (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's only one subject, hence the redirect, but this is quite prominent whacknuttery. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Winter War
The lead section of the article is corrupted with undue weight by cherry picking information from doubtful sources. See the discussion. The discussion has led to nothing, and based on the comments and edit history of the opponent user, I have got serious doubts on his good faith. Therefore, I ask for your help. --Gwafton (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How is this relevant to the fringe theories noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Undue weight. Too much weight on alternative theories. In particular the sentence "Some sources purport that the Soviet Union had intended to conquer all of Finland" when according to majority of credible sources Soviet Union did try to conquer the whole country. --Gwafton (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Undue weight is probably an issue for WP:NPOVN - unless you are suggesting that the minority view is that of a fringe unsupported by mainstream historiography, which from a quick look at the discussion doesn't seem to be the case. Being in the minority isn't the same as being fringe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The presented views are on the limit, but I move the discussion to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to avoid the risk that the discussion would focus on the topic whether the alternative theories are fringe enough or are they just slightly fringish. Feel free to share your view there – you can close this thread here. --Gwafton (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine-tuned Universe
See the talk-page. There has been objections to citing some sources. Also a user raised concerns that Robert L. Parks comment "If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life." was off-topic. Should this quote be included? Let know on the talk-page where I have discussed this with some other editors. PunkRockerTom (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote is on-topic as it appears to specifically address the "Fine-tuned Universe" proposition. Whether or not it should be included due to WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE is something that can be hashed out on the talk page. - Location (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a valid source and directly addresses the subject, and the source is a well known and respected commentator in the field. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics ( www.isgp.nl )
I have opened up a request for feedback regarding the acceptability of a conspiracy source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics ( www.isgp.nl ). Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae
I thought that the attempt to use this to push a fringe view had been averted, but it's been reinstated. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup - this attempt to misuse DYK to promote pseudohistory is still going on - see also Wikipedia talk:Did you know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This should serve as the impetus for the inclusion of WP:FRINGEHOOK either in the DYK guidelines or in WP:FRINGE. - Location (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

22 November 1963 ( 22november1963.org.uk )
I have opened up another request for feedback regarding the acceptability of a conspiracy source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#22 November 1963 ( 22november1963.org.uk ). Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Chip Coffey
Needs some work - an alleged psychic medium, I added an EL about a sting that took place recently, but maybe it could be used as a source isntead. I'm withdrawing from a lot of editing right now for obvious reasons, I just won't have the time. I've pruned my watchlist heavily. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's quite a bit about him in Paranormal State - but it's pretty much a BLP violation without a source. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Newport Tower again
Now being sourced from the website of the Chronognostic Research Foundation. If someone would like to take a look before I remonstrate with the editor, I would appreciate it. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * He took my earlier reverts well, he is looking for reliable sources, but I agree I'm not sure about that one. I have seen no reason to think he isn't editing in good faith. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin
For those who are interested, there is discussion about the intersection of BLP and FRINGE going on in the Talk page, and editing, of the article above. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

More concrete question now. Griffin advocates the use of laetrile to treat cancer and has engaged in HIV/AIDS denialism. My understanding of the intersection of BLP and PSCI is that WP should simply and directly provide the scientific consensus on these issues. Two users, and  disagree, for reasons explained by them here. The current content is:

Cancer and AIDS denial In 1974, Griffin wrote and published the book World Without Cancer and released it as a documentary video; its second edition appeared in 1997. In the book and the video, Griffin asserts that cancer is a metabolic disease facilitated by the insufficient dietary consumption of laetrile. He contends that "eliminating cancer through a nondrug therapy has not been accepted because of the hidden economic and power agendas of those who dominate the medical establishment" and he wrote, "at the very top of the world's economic and political pyramid of power there is a grouping of financial, political, and industrial interests that, by the very nature of their goals, are the natural enemies of the nutritional approaches to health". Since the 1970s, the use of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has never been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer.[26] Emanuel Landau, then a Project Director for the APHA, wrote a book review for the American Journal of Public Health, which noted that Griffin "accepts the 'conspiracy' theory ... that policy-makers in the medical, pharmaceutical, research and fund-raising organizations deliberately or unconsciously strive not to prevent or cure cancer in order to perpetuate their functions". Landau concludes that although World Without Cancer "is an emotional plea for the unrestricted use of the Laetrile as an anti-tumor agent, the scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it".

Griffin's websites refer visitors to doctors, clinics, and hospitals with alternative cancer treatments, including sellers of laetrile. He does not sell laetrile himself.

Griffin founded The Cancer Cure Foundation "in December of 1976 as a non-profit organization dedicated to research and education in alternative cancer therapies". The foundation expanded its mission in March, 2002 to include disseminating information about other medical conditions, and it changed its name to The Cure Research Foundation. In 2010, Griffin engaged in HIV/AIDS denialism, claiming that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) "doesn't exist" and that antiretroviral medications (rather than the HIV virus) cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

Time to close this discussion
Despite this whole debate having a very low level of importance in the BLP, it appears to be of high importance to a few editors who insist on making Griffin a topic of pseudoscience despite the contradictory description in WP:FRINGE. I consult you to please read the following research collection because it further substantiates my interpretation of WP policy and contradicts the outdated RS used at Griffin:

Full article is here:   Hardly what I consider quackery or pseudoscience. The antiquated claims in combination with outdated and/or poor sourcing on Griffin need to be updated so the article will be in compliance with BLP policy. I wish all of you a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Enjoy time with your family, and may we all enjoy a happy and prosperous 2015!!! <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme ☯  Consult  18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The position that laetrile is a safe and effective treatment for cancer is pseudoscience.  Plain and simple. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do tell, ...what is a safe and effective treatment for...let's say, pancreatic cancer? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * that is a non sequitur. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If avoiding the question spares you the embarrassment of answering, it's ok with me. It appears you may have misunderstood WP's definition of pseudoscience - darn pesky definitions - so I'll include it here for your convenience: Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods.  To make it even more convenient for you, here is the def for scientific standards and methods: The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.  Do you suppose MSKCC has lost their minds for even considering their previously suppressed research, or worse yet, the scientific methods over the past few years that have proven the compound has cancer fighting agents? Gee Wilikers!!  Remove your biotech hat and start wearing your WP editor's hat because Griffin is a BLP, not pseudoscience. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * what point is there to responding to a non sequitur? real question.  and I have never said "griffin is pseudoscience".  I don't even know what that means.   Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this, but *LOL*  <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Atsme, your psuedoscience comments are now very blatant WP:IDHT. You've already been told many times that fringe and psuedoscience are two very related areas that are treated under the same policy you have been referred to many times. That you continue to bring up "it's not psuedoscience" type comments when we are still dealing with fringe ideas appears as a very weak attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERING and is very tendentious at this point. You seemed to have keyed in on the word pseudoscience and are entirely missing the meat of what fringe content is in the policies and guidelines you've been pointed to. I've spotted some fringe related content that can be worked on with some of your suggestions, but you're not going to get any traction for them if you also engage in nonsense like you are above at the same time. Right now, you are not helping yourself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

My comments include direct quotes from WP:FRINGE, so it appears you may have a WP:DONTGETIT issue. Spend more time in trenches before you start criticizing other editors. Devote some of your time to creating a few articles, 5x expanding a couple to get them DYK ready, and then go through a couple of GA reviews. Happy editing. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme ☯  Consult  04:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Very strange post indeed. Either way, it doesn't seem specific content issues are really being discussed here anymore, so I'll close the conversation. If other issues come up related to this board, probably best to start a new conversation to keep it pointed on a specific problem. This board isn't meant to address behavior issues that are also mired within a content dispute, so I'd suggest editors bring it to the drama boards (unfortunately) if they continue to be a persistent disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine-tuned Universe again
More problems with removal of sourced content etc. Evidently at least one contributor doesn't agree with sourced scientific material refuting the fringe creationist/theological arguments presented there, and is under the impression that only one side of the argument belongs in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Dissent from Darwin and discrimination - RS source on testimony or not?


Creation-evolution controversy

Creation-evolution controversy

'Creationists claim there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution'

These two sources appear representative and reliable witnesses to the views of the community they represent, one corroborating the other. This has been contested. Talk:Creation–evolution controversy

Have been advised to ask here from Reliable_sources notice board, the links seem to comply with external links guide.Cpsoper (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've no idea why people keep representing this as a reliable sources issue - it isn't, the sources can only ever be presented as attributed opinion, and there are very few sources which aren't reliable for the opinions of the author. The real issue is whether these opinions are significant or not, and I think that policy is clear on this - if such opinions have been given significant coverage beyond creationist sources, they may merit inclusion - along with the mainstream response. If there hasn't been a mainstream response, one would have to conclude that the arguments aren't significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks @AndyTheGrump, I fully agree weight is the primary issue, but the RS issue has been raised repeatedly as you know. It does seem to me that detailed assertions, in over 300 pages of text with 68 pages references, of alleged unjustified sackings in candidates, with otherwise exemplary academic credentials, work sabotage and death threats are pretty weighty, whether they have yet been acknowledged by outsiders or not. Cpsoper (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it hasn't "been acknowledged by outsiders", it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than discuss this in two places simultaneously, I shall continue at Talk:Creation–evolution_controversy Cpsoper (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I'm done discussing this with you, since you seem incapable of acknowledging Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As promised, my reply awaits.Cpsoper (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the other talk page, the specific edit in this case is "Creationists claim there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution." To be accurate, the statement would have to be "Dr Jerry Bergman, in his book Slaughter of the Dissidents, claims that there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution.". The source is a reliable source just not for the edit in question. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm not quite sure I follow this carefully poised reasoning. Bergman is RS, but not for this edit because... He has been cited by hundreds of other sites, many with thousands if not scores of thousands of visitors, the majority of which I accept are creationist, some ID, one in the local press, one a book by a Christian, a co-editor of which Dinesh D'Souza is not creationist, a Muslim, and of course some fairly disparaging reviews by what S J Gould (of Panda's thumb fame) would probably also call Darwin fundamentalists. The persistent denial of this edit appears quite inconsistent with wiki policy. Cpsoper (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I was quite clear, my statement was the edit requested was not representative of the source, THIS would be a more correct edit "Dr Jerry Bergman, in his book Slaughter of the Dissidents, claims that there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution.".  not "Creationists claim" but  "Dr Jerry Bergman claims that creationists claim". CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Allow me to use another wikipedia article to illustrate. Please consult [] in this paragraph, are examples like "The film contends...", "Stein further accuses academia...", not with vague statements like "Creationists claim..." CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Bergman is RS for his opinions. Everyone is RS for his/her own opinions. Nobody has provided the slightest evidence that anyone other than fellow creationists/IDers consider his views anything more than tinfoil-hattery. Your refusal to provide such evidence while blathering on about policies you clearly don't understand is verging on the tendentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you CLU, so what about an edit that cited a body like AiG or CMI, both largish creationist groups, both of whom seem to have cited and encouraged the reading of Bergman's work, as references for 'what creationists say/claim'? Why single out Bergman as a single spokesman, when it's clear his views are representative of and advocated by the community he stands for? As to other sources, I've sought to list some of them on the talk page in question. Cpsoper (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's the case that "his views are representative of and advocated by the community he stands for," it follows that it must be possible to source the views in question to that larger community rather than a single author. CMI and AiG would make a good start. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Creationists do indeed believe that they are victims of discrimination as a result of their dogmatic rejection of the scientific fact of evolution. We scarcely need more data points for this, especially if they risk giving the impression that this persecution complex is valid. We can probably find some flat earth believers who feel they are discriminated against in the field of geology, too. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Bergman
In related news Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Universal Medicine
is an Australian alt-med cult that has diligently scrubbed Google of unflattering content. And there's a LOT of unflattering content. The shills are now watching the article, so more eyes would be helpful. I think I may be the only non-SPA watching it! Guy (Help!) 22:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added it to my watch list and dropped a note on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you (and BullRangifer) for looking over it. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we have a low intensity edit war going on between two opposing groups of SPAs in this article. I think both sides have agenda issues and I have been urging them to keep it NPOV, but I am not sanguine. One side seems to be intent on turning the article into something close to an indictment of the group (serious pseudoscience and quackery to be sure), while the other, mostly one SPA, is trying to play defense. I don't want to get BITEY with new editors, but I am worried that there is little chance for consensus and there is a lot of suspicion and ill-will starting to show up on the talk page. As of a few minutes ago I posted on the talk page basically asking for a 24hr cease fire while they go and read some of the applicable guidelines. Some additional oversight and possible intervention by other experienced editors would be appreciated. Thanks.

CC:, and  -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gee whiz, and thank you very much, . I will add it to my watch list, which I might hypothetically and theoretically call "kook watch", except that would violate BLP, and I would never say anything like that. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * your watch list has my hypothetical sympathy, and you have my sincere appreciation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is interesting, a list of some sites evidently Google banned in Australia. I've added it to my watchlist but my new role is even busier and multi-faceted than I had originally expected. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific opinions in favor of the ET hypothesis for UFOs.
I did (perhaps somewhat controversially) this. The entire passage, I thought, suffered from violation of WP:WEIGHT considerations. The entire article, however, may be unduly weighted since the idea is so far-fetched as to be only relevant as a conspiracy-theory jaunt. Help in recasting the article from a more serious and neutral outlook would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything improper with the deletion. Material likely to be challenged needs to be cited. Pointing to a website and saying "here" is insufficient. - Location (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture
"A 2012 analysis of data on individual participants in acupuncture studies looked at migraine and tension headaches. The analysis showed that actual acupuncture was more effective than either no acupuncture or simulated acupuncture in reducing headache frequency or severity."[29] See Acupuncture. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.

"A 2014 Australian clinical study involving 282 men and women showed that needle and laser acupuncture were modestly better at relieving knee pain from osteoarthritis than no treatment, but not better than simulated (sham) laser acupuncture."[30] See Acupuncture. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.

"According to NCCAM, results of a systematic review that combined data from 11 clinical trials with more than 1,200 participants suggested that acupuncture (and acupuncture point stimulation) may help with certain symptoms associated with cancer treatments.[85]" See Acupuncture. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.

See Identifying reliable sources (medicine): "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."

I think the key word is reputable, according to the wording of WP:MEDRS. For example, the reputations of NIMH and NCI are significantly different than that of NCCAM. Since it is not clear that NCCAM (see National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health) is a reputable organisation I think we should leave the text out of the Acupuncture section. If the question is WP:WEIGHT, the effectiveness section is bloated with a number of better sources.

See Talk:Acupuncture for the current discussion. While the discussion was still ongoing the tags were removed. Please comment on the talk page. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 07:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This was also discussed at project medicine - Is NCCAM MEDRS? and it seems the general consensus was that NCCAM is MEDRS compliant, particularly the specific sources under question here.
 * It appears there is a lack of consensus for including it according to the talk page discussion and the previous discussion at project medicine. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, and also concur that NCCAM releases like this are not peer reviewed and count as self-published sources which cannot be used to support material on third parties. NCCAM is a political organization, not a medical one. WP:REDFLAG applies as well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and this ain't even close. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Kazakh panspermist
Articles for deletion/Maxim Makukov.

Comments welcome.

jps (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
There are a few uses of "alleged" or "allegedly" in Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. that might require additional opinions. - Location (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a huge problem in this article in its handling of the Loyd Jowers conspiracy case. I've more or less failed to find a sober consideration of this episode but its handling at present strikes me as being a bit on the OR side, particularly in its use of primary sources. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Martin Luther King, Jr., James Earl Ray, Dexter Scott King, and Loyd Jowers all have substantial material, much of it overlapping, related to conspiracy beliefs. I suggest the creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. conspiracy theories. The article on Jowers could make up a significant part of that article. - Location (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bilocation & Saints and levitation
This article is a stub and is fairly neutral, but it seems to avoid the obvious point that this kind of apparition violates several physical laws. How is it best to characterize this kind of magical claim without getting into the rather silly and pedantic rejoinder sentences such as "bilocation is impossible"?

jps (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

In the same vein as the above, this article is straightforward and rather neutral, but doesn't point out some of the obvious issues with these claims. I note, in a related bit, that our previously fraught yogic flying article has been scrubbed from Wikipedia with a redirect to TM.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Just remember one of the main rules of Wikipedia: No original Research. In this case, it means You need to find a published source discussing bilocation or levitation which specifically states something along the lines of "biolocation violates laws of physics."  You must then cite that as the source of the sentence you want to add.  For my part, I think it would be a rather pointless to add.  As you indicated, everyone knows these it's a violation of the laws of physics, which is precisely why claims of bi-location and levitation are considered miracles--events which defy the laws of physics.  Trying to turn an article about claims of miraculous events into an opportunity to teach a bit of physics or to remind people that such claims are not accepted by this group of scientists or that group of skeptics is more annoying than educational.  But if you think otherwise, just make sure you have an article from a reliable source that specifically states that bilocation and levitation violate the laws of physics (or summarize whatever the source does precisely asserts) then your edit will be immune to complaints that it represents "original" material.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of easy-to-find references which illustrate how contrary to reality these claims are:, . You do raise a good point about the coverage of miracles in general on Wikipedia. It is difficult to decide whether audiences are interested in the factual claims associated with miracles or whether they just want to be informed about the mythology of them. In fact, identifying miracles as mythology up-front may be good enough. jps (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The appropriate response, since their can clearly be no reliable source asserting levitation and similar miracles as fact, is to instead report them for what they are - beliefs and claims, properly attributed to whoever makes them. This of course presupposes that such claims have such coverage as to merit discussion in the first place, per WP:WEIGHT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that that is appropriate for individual claims, but the problem here is that these articles are clearinghouses and can run into WP:SYNTH territory rather easily. The Catholic Encyclopedia includes entries for both of these topics, but Wikipedia seems to have an even broader reach than that work. What constitutes a "bilocation" claim or a "saintly levitation" claim? (Note that the Flying Nun is a See Also link rather tongue-and-cheek-ily). We need better sources that discuss these topics as broader ideas rather than hagiographic anecdotes. Are there any mythologists or folklorists who have studied these themes? I'm not having a lot of luck locating sources that properly and broadly cover the topics. jps (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, OR and synth are my main concerns about this article. It reads like a personal essay built by scraping anything that sounds like "bilocation" on fringe and primary sources, based on the authors own taste rather than on substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. I would not hesitate to !vote to delete this at AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a need to belabor the point that people neither bilocate nor fly without mechanical and/or divine assistance, and it seems to be that the articles as they appear attest to these as legendaria rather than as anything approaching established fact. Miraculous acts, after all, are supposed by those who promulgate them to be extraordinary phenomena in exception to established physics, folk or otherwise; we do not need to say this in every article. It is hardly neutral to assert that miracles do not happen. Mangoe (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Without evidence that a particular miracle actually happened it must be described as purported. All articles should make clear if the subject is factual, imagined, legendary, mythical etc. The factual nature of the subject should be clearly reflected in the article. Note WP:REDFLAG extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. WP:PARITY subjects not covered by serious academic debate should have mainstream scientific position represented by available sources. It is not neutral to describe a miracle(s) without presenting the mainstream academic/scientific consensus on if a miracle(s) actually occured or if the subject is of historical, mythological, anthropological, sociological etc. significance. As an encyclopedia the basis for articles is high quality published sources reflecting serious academic analysis. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I re-scanned the articles of interest in light of the above comments. I see ample use of the appropriate modifiers, i.e. "Bilocation is an alleged psychic or miraculous ability.." "Several Christian saints, monks and Muslim sufis are said to have exhibited bilocation."  I don't see any assertions that the editors of the articles are asserting that any of these claimed miracles are undisputable facts. If, in a careful reading, any editor believes there is a passage which need to be better nuanced or more carefully written to identify who is alleging the miracle, that editor should fix it up.  But for readers wondering: "What the hell is 'bilocation?', the article on bilocation provides at least a decent starting point answer to what people or sources talking about this alleged phenomena are referring.  Ditto with "miraculous" levitation.  My advice regarding the addition of sources identifying these claims as contrary to physics remains the same: Go ahead and add them if they specifically address the alleged phenomena of bilocation or levitation.  I don't think this is a necessary improvement in light of the embedded qualifications already in the article, but it may be a helpful improvement.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Providing a useful definition is not in-and-of-itself a rationale for a Wikipedia article. WP:NOT. The problem I'm having is finding any sources which discuss "bilocation" or "saintly levitation" as encyclopedic topics. Levitation is a reasonable article by comparison. jps (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Islam
See Talk:Islam. There is a very small sect of Muslims known as Quranists that only take into account the words of the Quran. Other muslims (the vast majority) also believe in hadith, the reported sayings of and stories about Muhammad. The Quranists do not. Just as the lead to Christianity says "most" Christians believe Jesus is the son of God and the lead to Muhammad says that Muslims "almost universally" regard him as the last prophet [for info: the Ahmadiyya sect do not], I think the lead of Islam should say something like the "vast majority" of Muslims believe in the hadith. Other editors want to say effectively all Muslims believe in hadith, citing WP:FRINGE. I believe that is a misunderstanding of FRINGE which, in an article about a religion, should concern fringe sources/theories about a religion rather than fringe sects of that religion. Grateful for other inputs. DeCausa (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Know any scholar who has challenged this thing? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware that any scholar has denied that Quranists exist. DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposed changes then. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE does not apply to questions of religious dogma. Only to questions of academic fact. jps (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Portage County UFO Chase
I'm not too fond of what was done by here:



My recommendation is a wholesale revert, but I'd appreciate some input from other editors before throwing my weight around further.

In fact, we should probably go through and look carefully at all this user's contributions to Wikipedia. He is a passionate UFO true believer.

jps (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted the lot. It was all hooey, and is the rest of the article, as there is absolutely no evidence that this "chase" ever received substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. A candidate for AfD, in my opinion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. The usual violation of WP:ONEWAY, but there might be just enough for UFO sightings in the United States. The Close Encounters bit is an interesting tidbit for which it would be nice to have a reliable source. - Location (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then:

Articles for deletion/Portage County UFO chase.

jps (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Schirmer Abudction

 * Also see . - LuckyLouie }}


 * Even worse hooey than the last- totally unsourced. Another candidate for deletion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep: Articles for deletion/Schirmer Abduction. jps (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pascagoula Abduction
In investigating the previous article, I ran across this extensive piece.

Help!

jps (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:ONEWAY. Most GNews hits point to the 1973 report, but the first on is from 1974. I think this is sufficient for a mention in and redirect to UFO sightings in the United States. - Location (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The references are insufficient, but blanking and redirecting to UFO sightings in the United States would be too harsh, because the incident looks quite notable. I believe there are plenty of good sources out there for the seeker (such as this, this, this, this, this and this). This CSICOP piece also can provide some quality citations. It seems there is also a documentary. This must be one of the most notable cases, otherwise it wouldn't have been discussed extensively in some channelled texts. Logos (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Shivkar Bapuji Talpade and his Vedic ion jet propelled plane
Considerably changed recently. I've removed one source was which on Beall's list of predatory journals, but take a look at this source. Evidently Talpade used mercury engines. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noting that a forthcoming Bollywood movie is already attracting various IPs and editors. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This would be a good name for a rock group. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol. As an aside, there was a better version several years ago. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Found an article about the film - Hawaizaada. The first powered flight, which was not actually very impressive, was made by John Stringfellow. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Flight" is such a flexible term. Chinese rockets predate Stringfellow, Insects predate birds, coronal mass ejections predate all of them... LeadSongDog  come howl!  18:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we revert to the more appropriate version? --Ghirla-трёп- 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Kundalini syndrome
I'm concerned that the article does not clearly identify the supposed "syndrome" as pseudo-science. There is no warning for the readers to take care. The article seems to be based almost entirely on the works of fringe theorists. Is it ok? --Ghirla-трёп- 09:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it is not pseudoscience and you are engaged in psuedohistorical revisionism when you say so. Article should be bit lowered though. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A veritable cesspool of wanton blither. I'm putting it on my watchlist. Itmight be worth prodding it and seeing what happens. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As usual, you are not enough competent to talk about these matters. It is not worth prodding or AFD. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the point of keeping in Wikipedia so many outlandish quotes, such as: "When the laws about Kundalini are known, the life span of man will increase to as much as 150 years, out of which the greater part will be for his enjoyment and for the exercise of all his faculties. These supermen will be prodigies of the highest order. They will have command of all the premier languages of the world and will be able to write in prose and verse in all of them. They will have command of all the sciences, and in that condition will be able to guide even the highest specialists." --Ghirla-трёп- 09:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you discussed these issues on its talk(page) first? You clearly haven't, how about you point out the material that you don't prefer on the main article and propose these original thoughts their first? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there isn't much point is discussing this on the talk page. The best option would be to flush this stinky turd, flush twice, shut the lid and weigh it down with a cinder block. Otherwise, mass deletions of all the unsourced bullshit seem in order. Although there will probably be no article left after that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It will be lowered a bit. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly with DV and NOTE: that Blades doesn't know what "Pseudohistorical Revisionism" actually means, it's just some big words he's seen used elsewhere. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly the one who is himself engaged in pseudohistorical revisionism and making up crackpot theories would find a way to justify it, but it is just waste of efforts and you only show that how incompetent you are. Next time keep it on the subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Zou huo ru mo (medicine) anybody? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask Dominus. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Blades ... Please define how DV's behaviour, and mine, is "Pseudohistorical Revisionism". Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No not here, I was only talking about Ghirla, not you or Dominus here, and at least not related with this. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to be nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Then rebuilt from good sources - if there are any. Alexbrn talk 14:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct and that's what I am trying to, also per suggestion by Dbachmann on his talk. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

 * Articles for deletion/Kundalini syndrome. Please comment. jps (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Quackademic medicine
Deletion discussion. See Articles for deletion/Quackademic medicine. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Complementary & Alternative medicine / Discretionary Sanctions
For anybody who missed it, note that in its wisdom Arbcom recently passed a motion in effect clarifying that discretionary sanctions apply to "any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine". Alexbrn talk 11:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's daft. A new category of Pseudoscience that is already categorised as Pseudoscience under the old rules is now categorised as Pseudoscience twice. I think Arbcom hasn't helped. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose it might cut down on some of those tedious discussions there have been in the past about whether DS applies to CAM topics. Alexbrn talk 13:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly that. It removes the opportunity to Wikilawyer over whether alt-med claim X is pseudoscience or fringe science or not. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Near-death studies
The proposal of this article is that "near-death studies" as promoted by IANDS is an academic discipline in the same way that, say, reincarnation research may have been so considered in the past. I think this is way oversold and rather unbalanced. In fact, I think that the claim that there is an academic "discipline" should be handled under the parapsychology umbrella in the same way we handled reincarnation research. Redirect to Near-death experience might work well. Thoughts?

jps (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Without having time to look at any of this, the balance point to me is, are there enough reliable sources to make 'near death studies' an actual article, regardless of its categorization? And then link it into the appropriate other articles (such as the suggestion by jps.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Near-death studies is a name for a field of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience. According to Bruce Greyson, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Connecticut Health Center, Psychiatry, vol. 56, November 1993: It is of interest to mental health professionals because these experiences produce widespread and long—lasting changes in values, beliefs, and behavior that dramatically affect the experiencers' attitudes toward living and dying.


 * It is about what the patient under care claims to experience for the purpose of treatment. While scientists clearly have a hard time containing their curiosity the primary purpose of the studies arises from an interest in what happens if the patent doesn't die. (As oppose to Parapsychology that is interested in what happens after death)


 * Our job is not to ignorantly second guess the merit of scientific investigation but to establish if such research happened and if the field of study received enough coverage. After doing so we should consider if there is value in having a separate scientific context besides from the pop culture, the level of content replication and how big the articles are. Ignorantly blending science with pop-culture is a terrible idea but given the terrible state of the article it is an understandable mistake. You probably thought the scientists are looking for god or something like that.


 * There are sufficient sources to satisfy notability of the scientific field. Notability extends infinitely far into the afterlife: If it ever was a notable field it will be notable forever. If the field is abandoned doesn't mean we should delete the article. This same mistake is indeed to be found in : Articles_for_deletion/Reincarnation_research_%282nd_nomination%29 That topic unquestionably has been subjected to serious research by researchers with respectable academic posts. In this AfD we also get to see the POV fork fallacy repeated: WP:POV fork: Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except for in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing.


 * For a scientific article, beyond establishing notability, we want scientific sources from proponents and deniers alike. I can see how the Skeptic dictionary editors don't like that idea, they want to use ignorant blog postings that fit their already made up believe system, not scientific objectivity. Clearly what we have here is editing to advance a specific view.


 * Thanks for your time,


 * P.S. Kindly restrain yourself from subscribing me to any of these unscientific believe systems and/or considering me a proponent of any of this. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus the Man (book)
Fringe, POV, and OR edits. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lee Carroll
See Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See what? 84.106.11.117 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well cited criticism being removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see that but why is it here? Why cant you/Dough just restore it and use the talk pages? At the top of the noticeboard I read: "This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories." The contribution seems wrong enough not to merit a discussion here. What part am I missing? 84.106.11.117 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just hoping for more eyes. I don't really have a lot of time for editing and am gradually removing most articles from my watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

New category for Hyperdiffusionism in archaeology suggested
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The category seems at least justifiable (where it is used properly - which will mean according to cited sources). The Hyperdiffusionism in archaeology article clearly needs work though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC notification
Current text in the lede is: TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." Some editors think it is inappropriate to suggest that Traditional Chinese medicine is pseudoscience. There was a previous DR. See Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92.

Hello everyone, there is an RFC that editors from this noticeboard may be interested in commenting on: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. I added a quote instead of the previous text and I proposed on the talk page if the quote is still not satisfactory it can be rewritten. Thank you for your feedback. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 02:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this notice.--LarEvee (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:LarEvee, please read the specific question for the RFC. Please note that this is not a discussion of whether TCM is pseudoscience, whether the source meets WP:MEDRS, or anything else like that; the question is whether the article even says what it is being used to say. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Targeted Individual
Article and deletion discussion relevant to this noticeboard:

Articles for deletion/Targeted Individual (2nd nomination) Kolbasz (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a fringe article, either it can be sourced and written properly or sources are insufficent and it should be deleted. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential revision to Template:Fringe theories?
Has anyone ever considered altering the above template in such a way as to allow it to not use the words "fringe theories" in the template as it appears, but rather the phrase "minority theories"? There is currently discussion about the definition of "fringe theories" here at Christ myth theory, where some individuals are advocating, I think not necessarily wholly unreasonably, that the "minority" theory that Jesus never existed might not qualify as a "fringe theory" the way that phrase is ordinarily used in everyday speech. Given the somewhat perjorative nature of the term fringe theory in a lot of circles, I can see potentially other instances in which the latter phrasing might be more reasonable than the former. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If something is truly a minority theory, isn't that different than fringe? Over at WP:WEIGHT there are three bullet points. I was always under the assumption that the third bullet point was in essence our definition of what fringe material is. It seems like the folks in your example are claiming it's the second bullet point. If that's the case, I'm afraid changing the phrase to minority theory would only confuse that matter since it would categorize a wider array of things as fringe material. I think it'd probably be better to point folks to the distinction between fringe and minority views instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kingoffaces, a minority view is substantially different than a fringe one. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Felix Moncla
Lack of good sources and probably biased towards UFOlogy. Leave alone or nominate for deletion? Geogene (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Electronic harassment
Eyes may be needed on the Electronic harassment article - a contributor has been adding the same fringe-conspiracy-theory-promoting nonsense that was previously in the now-deleted Targeted Individual article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally would retain something of the "media" section (though not in its current proxy-for-inclusion form) and something like the last paragraph of the lead. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)