Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 47

Robert S. Mendelsohn
Biography of a doctor who "viewed modern medicine as an idolatrous religion" and who "questioned the necessity and safety of many childhood vaccinations", sourced entirely to the man's own books. It's impossible to tell from the current state of the article which parts of his teachings were reasonable criticisms (e.g. unnecessary radiation exposure in the US in the '60s) and which parts were fringe medical beliefs (e.g. antivax). Kolbasz (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mendelsohn was a crank, and no mistake. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what I gathered between the lines, but a casual Wikipedia reader cannot tell from the current state of the article. Kolbasz (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There was an old version last edited by Krelnik that was less fawning. Then there was a rapid succession of edits by probably one person, initially as an IP and later with an account. These are clearly promotional, including the obsessive reference to the doctoral title which is characteristic of cranks promoting the views of the few medically qualified people whose views are ideologically consonant and removing reality-based criticism.
 * It doesn't help that he was portrayed as a critic of medicine - actually he was a critic of medical paternalism. We did not have an article on that, which was a surprise, so I started one. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kolbasz (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He does seem to have been a crank, but there's no problem with articles about cranks and fringe-theories as long as they are notable cranks and fringe theories! I suspect that this subject does not meet the standards for a notable academic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not as an academic, but the syndicated newspaper column, "appeared on over 500 television and radio talk shows" claim and LA Times article on his death suggest he was notable anyway. Kolbasz (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I added some starter sources.  Notability is clear enough given the news obituaries and other coverage in major media.  More work is certainly needed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Acerola
In the article acerola, on a tropical fruit, does source 5, an article in the journal Fruits, meet WP:MEDRS? It is used to support the idea that the Vitamin C in the fruit is more easily absorbed than synthetic Vitamin C. I would have thought that unlikely, or unknowable, or dependent on the amount of each consumed? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are multiple molecules that have Vitamin C-like activity. The source that is cited for this is a review article that attributes the claim to "Araújo P.S.R., Minami K., Acerola, Fundação Cargill, Campinas, SP, Brazil, 1994, 81 p." which looks to me like a job for WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. The review article does not name the supposed superior molecule. I would not consider this adequate for what should be regarded as a medical claim. Rhoark (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I read the article and it's clear what's going on. It says "We can only absorb 50% of synthetic vitamin C," with the Araújo paper as the source. This probably refers to the fact that the plant would contain only the active enantiomer of ascorbic acid (called L-ascorbic acid). Synthetic ascorbic acid would typically be a racemic mixture and would contain 50% of the active enantiomer, L-ascorbic acid, and 50% inactive D-ascorbic acid. Roches (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Should the claim stay? It sounds not, per Rhoark. Roches's post and link are above my head, but if the same thing would be true for the Vitamin C in any fruit, then to make the claim specifically about acerola would be a misuse of Wikipedia for marketing purposes. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not. Roches hit the nail on the head. Removing that sentence. Kolbasz (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Mehran Tavakoli Keshe - a "free energy" "engineer"
Folks here might be interested in helping clean up this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I nuked it: the snarky PROD was a bit of a WP:BLP problem and the claims to notability, aside from being unsourced, were utterly implausible. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

After-death communication
I've tried redirecting to Mediumship citing the insufficient notability of this particular term, but the user who added translations of a German Wikipedia page won't let go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well it seems to be about the surviving member of a couple getting the feeling they are receiving messages from their deceased partner, which is not really mediumship in the usual sense. Paul B (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DavidWestT
has a couple of hundred edits, many of which have been reverted as promoting fringe ideas (e.h. at and ). I suspect that this is not going to end well, but perhaps someone with tact and patience could counsel him? Guy (Help!) 07:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy I added the Bear's Guide citation, removed William Martin, and clarified in three places that BIU is unaccredited. The page needs work, and yes, less promotion.DavidWestT (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You also added one of Martin's long-standing tropes, claiming that non-academic endorsements are an excuse for non-accreditation. I have had letters from the Spanish chamber of commerce assuring me that he is legally allowed to trade, when I pointed out that this was nothing to do with accreditation and showed them the history, they were none too pleased with him. He plays people for a patsy and then uses that as ammunition to try to wave away the fact that his degrees are effectively worthless. The one thing he does not seem to be prepared to do, in any of the places he's done business, is get accreditation. At some point you have to begin to ask: what is it about Bircham that accreditation is somehow never an option? Guy (Help!) 21:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Corbin and Paranet Continuum
Michael Corbin hosted Paranet Continuum, but I'm not finding coverage in reliable secondary sources. Feedback from others, particularly those familiar with the usual UFO-related sujects, is requested. - Location (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Paranet Continuum. That one seems obvious. I'm not as sure about the biography, but it strikes me as likely to be non-notable. jps (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I only found one, relatively trivial, mention. I'll wait a bit to !vote. - Location (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Michael Corbin. Yeah, there's bupkis out there on Corbin. jps (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Overton window
I thought this is a fringe theory proposed by a marginal politician, who has never been an academic scientist, and never seriously discussed as a real academic hypothesis. However, the lede makes an impression this is an established concept. Does anybody know more about this?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It does seem to have been mentioned in a number of credible sources. This political theory appears to be mentioned in a number of sources and was also the inspiration for the title of a Glen Beck novel. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem accepting it is a notable fringe theory, and I was not planning nominating it for deletion. My question is whether this is a fringe theory, and, provided this is the case, should the lede be amended?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's in popular culture use, though the intro painting it as generally accepted in the field of political theory is a bit much - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What exceeds the Overton Window of the average of Wikipedia editors is EXACTLY what ends up being called Wikipedia;:Fringe. So you can see it's a very useful concept.GangofOne (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a meme made famous on the internet and has entered into the common parlance of punditry. It has not been validated as an actual phenomenon and it should not be contextualized as a "political science theory", I agree. jps (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks you all for your responses. I will try to modify the lede, not sure how much support I am going to get over there.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was reverted within an hour.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oera Linda Book
We have an editor on this article who thinks it is slander to call it a hoax (despite reliable sources), took it out of category hoaxes, etc. Please keep an eye on it. Thanks. I don't think they understand NPOV (or in fact OR). Doug Weller (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And now the word hoax has been completely removed from the lead under the excuse of WP:LABEL, breaking our NPOV policy and WP:Lead as there is considerable discussion using the word 'hoax' in the body of the article. I don't know the editor's intentions, but the logic of this is to remove the word hoax from most articles. Doug Weller (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari
Repeated blankings of all critical material. Some talk page discussion. More eyes needed - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Fringe author on Columbus Manuel Rosa
Not sure if anyone here remembers Colon-el-Nuevo, but this has just been posted to my talk page:

Colon-el-Nuevo is back

I did a thorough search on Colon El Nuevo and other profiles created by him. This is the complete list:


 * 
 * 
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedalus&Ikaros (talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

The same change to the text of the Wikipedia page:


 * Colon El Nuevo
 * \Colon-el-Nuevo

Haven't looked at it yet to decide if an SPI is appropriate, but if anyone remembers this guy this information might be useful. Doug Weller (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of historians think that Christopher Columbus was Genoese. Examples include: Ballesteros Beretta, Manzano, Navarrete, Munoz, Duro, Asensio, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Morales Padron, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, Milhou, Serrano y Sanz to name a few. For Colon-el-Nuevo (and numerous fake profiles) the opinion of historians "is nothing." His favourite historian... the IT analyst Manuel Rosa. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lost Cause of the Confederacy
Currently, the opening Lost Cause of the Confederacy is written in a way that suggests that there is historical support for the view that the American Civil War was not actually about slavery. In reality, this view has no historical support whatsoever, and in fact, historians view it as a myth invented to justify the slavery and racism of the American South. There is currently a discussion on this at Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The version you (repeatedly) added to the lede did not summarize the article body. The consensus version of the lede clearly identifies the "lost cause" narrative as a minority viewpoint, summarizing the body which identifies several adherents who support the narrative. VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * VQuakr, A minority viewpoint is only valid if a minority of historians believe it, since this is an article about history. No historians hold this view of the Civil War, especially not the slavery denial. And if you wish to describe it as consensus, prove it by showing me the discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The current lede doesn't mention slavery at all, and yet there are a lot of sources which identify the Lost Cause of the Confederacy as a kind of historical revisionism explicitly with regards to denying slavery's influence. Collect some of these sources and add statements characterizing this to the lede and the article, absolutely. jps (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Kombucha tea
A fermented tea for which some health claims are made, and which some sources describe as being suspected of harmful (even very harmful) side effects. There have been some heated exchanges on this in recent days, and some editors are holding that describing kombucha as being associated with fatalities is a "fringe" view falling under WP:FRINGE. Wise eyes from fringe-savvy editors may help. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Home brewing is dangerous regardless of what you are trying to make. Potential contamination is very difficult to eliminate when you are developing methods from the ground-up and methanol production is obviously a risk in kombucha production. Still, it seems a little strange to me that the WARNING DANGERS! notice is found so prominently in the lead of that article. Seems to me that the most notable thing about this drink is that it often gets pulled from the shelves for containing too much alcohol. jps (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (Comment from involved contributor) There is no 'fringe theory' involved here. In fact beyond the common knowledge that jps reiterates above - that fermentation in uncontrolled conditions can create toxins - there is no theory involved at all. Just a simple reliably sourced statement that there have been fatalities associated with kombucha. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Two 2014 journal reviews have noted the toxicity reports are unsupported and further concluded that research indicates kombucha has potential health benefits as an antioxidant and probiotic. Kombucha tea is a popular trendy drink that is commercially produced and marketed as a health drink.  There are no RCT to confirm its efficacy in humans.  Re: reports of toxicity - every book and paper written on the toxicity issues (and there aren't many) refer to the same small group of case reports, most of which date back 15 years; nothing within the past 5 years.  They are exceptional claims that are scientifically unsupported and require exceptional sources.  The case reports are from a small group of people, are random, and there are few deaths including one rare case that involves an HIV patient.  Aspirin has taken a much higher toll.  Sorry, but inclusion of anecdotal reports is noncompliant with MEDRS, is UNDUE and should also be considered FRINGE. --Atsme 📞📧 19:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm also an involved contributor on that page. Some products collect lots of case reports of adverse effects while others, like kombucha, collect only a few. If there are only a few adverse effect reports for kombucha, then every review of kombucha is going to include those same reports and this doesn't mean that the case reports are invalid or that the reviews including them can't be used. Once adverse effects have been reported and plausibly linked to a product, that link is considered scientifically supported until or unless it's proven that the product could not have caused that effect. It's like a light switch: once the switch is flipped to "true" (or "plausible"), then the switch stays in that position until research actually flips it to "false" (or "not plausible"). The switch has to be actively flipped through research that contradicts or disproves previous research; excluding previous research is not the same. This means that even if these case reports happened 25 years ago, they're still valid because no research has shown that they're not valid. Finally, as far as I can see, the 2014 reviews either say only that adverse effect reports are very rare or they don't mention adverse effects at all; either way, they specifically don't say that kombucha didn't cause those adverse effects (ie, they don't flip that switch to false) which means that the adverse effect case reports nd the reviews that include and discuss them are still scientifically valid. Ca2james (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I remain optimistic that the contributors on this noticeboard understand that repeating the same anecdotal case reports in RS using the same information doesn't magically make them anything but anecdotal case reports that have been repeated, which does not lend credence to their validity. Atsme 📞📧 22:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source states that there have been deaths, they are not 'anecdotes', regardless of how many times you repeat that ridiculous assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, your statement about fermentation needs references which specifically refer to kombucha; otherwise this is original research. A number of original statements related to deaths, like the Pharmacology for Health Professionals ref used in the kombucha article, include qualifiers like "the cause could not be directly attributed to the kombucha".Dialectric (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My statement needs nothing - it isn't in the article, and I'm not proposing to add it. And for the record, WP:OR explicitly states that "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

nails how mainstream science treats these case reports - and WP needs to be in-line with mainstream science. Since there are number of RSs to choose from which properly reflect this, and raise concerns about the possible harms of kombucha, this is easily done. Our article is looking in pretty good shape now wrt health. The fringe claims are not those around kombucha's safety profile, but around the widespread scams (which one can see for oneself with some simple googling) based around assertions that kombucha will cure cancer, etc. Readers coming to Wikipedia need to find accurate health information here. Alexbrn (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The 'accurate health information' appears to be that there isn't any obvious health benefit in drinking the stuff... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed so. There seems to be a widespread anecdote that Ronald Reagan drank kombucha to stave-off cancer, which may be at the root of the various health scams, but I can't find any RS on this detail ... Alexbrn (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is like a stub. Needs some work. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: the death. I think it is an interesting fact about kombucha. I'm not convinced it is lede-worthy because, frankly, there are lots of things that people eat and drink for fun and non-existent health benefits that have caused deaths and we don't tend to highlight those in other articles, as far as I know -- especially not when the number of deaths is at least one. I don't think there is enough evidence to say that the dangers associated with kombucha are any greater than those of any other highly fermented drink (compare, e.g., kvass), but the difference here, obviously, is that the drink is often explicitly pushed as a health tonic. I think the current version of the lede is pretty good, in all honesty. jps (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The one death is usually stated as "linked with" or "after drinking", because all we know is that the person who died had also consumed kombucha over a few months. So it wouldn't be supported to say that kombucha caused this death. --Amble (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The association is much stronger than simply correlation, but I agree that causation is not the appropriate sense of the report. Currently, the article uses the correct term: "associated". jps (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you basing this on? The case report says "possibly associated", not "associated", and does not claim to demonstrate a correlation. --Amble (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An association is always "possible" and never "certain". I can't think of a case to the contrary, so I don't object to that particular adverb being added though I'd argue it's unnecessary. It's pretty clear that there was no other identifiable cause of the toxicity in the case of the woman who died. It is also possible that there was some other causal agent that was missed, but the particular case is striking in its connection between known features of kombucha toxicity and the fatality. . jps (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the authors of the report chose to use the deliberately indefinite phrasing "possible association" does not align with your statement that "The association is much stronger than simply correlation". What are you basing your statement on?  Also, where do you see evidence for a "connection between known features of kombucha toxicity and the fatality"?  The woman who died had peritonitis fecal contamination of the peritoneal cavity; are you suggesting that's a "known featur[e] of kombucha toxicity"?  It would seem to me rather to constitute an identifiable cause of toxicity apart from kombucha, especially given that the patient's kombucha was tested and did not reveal any such contamination.  --Amble (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a correlation since this wasn't teased out from statistical data. This is a case study. As I said, I see no issue with including the word "possible", but I find it redundant. Peritonitis can be a feature toxic exposure, absolutely. Your sentence, "It would seem to me rather to constitute an identifiable cause of toxicity apart from kombucha, especially given that the patient's kombucha was tested and did not reveal any such contamination." flatly contradicts the CDC report and seems a bit ignorant considering that peritonitis can be a symptom of toxic exposure and tests on an ingested substance must be done for specific pathogens and toxins and cannot be done for symptomatic contamination of the victim's peritoneal cavity. jps (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for sources for the statements you've made, namely that "[T]he association is much stronger than simply correlation" and "the particular case is striking in its connection between known features of kombucha toxicity and the fatality". Please provide.  --Amble (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the source provided explains all that. jps (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then it should be easy to concretely back up your statements from the source. --Amble (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I already did that. jps (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not seeing anything at all in the source that supports an association "much stronger than correlation", since the authors' language is much more tentative; or lists any "known features of kombucha toxicity". --Amble (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source itself is an association in the sense that it is an attribution by the authors. They could be wrong, and they're careful with explaining the limits to what they can say, but that's not our job to throw away this report simply because we evaluate it to be using tentative language or lacking depth. jps (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't suggested that we can throw away the source. I have questioned specific characterizations you made that don't seem to be supported by the source. --Amble (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My full argument is that the article is right to use the word "associated" when talking about the connection between the death and kombucha tea with reference to this particular case study. jps (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason the article is short is because there are very few reliable sources on the topic. There could be high quality books available to expand the page.. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"The consumption of Kombucha has been associated with some adverse effects including muscle inflammation, poisoning, infection, and the death of at least one person.[16][17][2] Some adverse health effects may be due to the acidity of the tea; brewers have been cautioned to avoid over-fermentation.[18]"

I think these two sentences can be improved without the word "some". Not sure why the word "some" is used in both sentences. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I took out the first instance of "some". The second one makes sense as a modifier as some but not all adverse effects are related to over fermentation. Ca2james (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there any editors participating in this discussion who are not involved at Kombucha, either editing or participating in the TP discussion? What I'm seeing here  is the same song second verse sung by the same choir, and so far, it hasn't resolved anything.  Is the purpose of this discussion to get some kind of consensus that the toxicity/death claims are fringe?  The answer is pretty obvious in the fact that there are approx 25 case reports out of hundreds of thousands of people around the world consuming the drink.  I imagine Bayer wishes they could be so lucky.
 * NBCNews, April 2010 Dr. Brent A. Bauer, an internist with the Mayo Clinic was interviewed: “To date, there hasn’t been a single human trial reported in a major medical journal,” he said. “This doesn’t mean that kombucha tea can’t possibly have health benefits, it just means that at this time, there’s no direct evidence that it provides the benefits it’s reported to have.”
 * The author of the article, Janet Helm, R.D. stated: "While kombucha may not be the miracle that some claim, it does represent an intriguing marriage of antioxidant-rich tea and probiotics."
 * Conclusions in two 2014 Journal Reviews confirm the antioxidant and probiotic properties in the fermented kombucha products. The reviews include the older research (and random anecdotal case reports which have been circulated in all the other sources, none of which give the toxicity claims any prominence beyond utilities that may be leaching lead and the products high acid content) but the 2014 reviews also include more recent research that was not included in the 2003 Ernst Review or in most of the other sources cited for the toxicity reports. One of the 2014 reviews is equal in quality per IF to the 2003 Ernst review, the other surpasses it.  A third review has recently surfaced that rates a 3.5 and is yet another high mid-quality review.
 * All of the reviews, books, and academic reports mirror the same small group of case reports re: toxicity and a couple deaths, all of which qualiify them as anecdotal in MEDRS. It doesn't matter how brilliant a doctor or scientist is - they cannot draw conclusions without evidence and without evidence they're making assumptions and assumptions are not good science.
 * There is no evidence of causality - not one of the claims that link or associate toxicity to kombucha are supported by scientific evidence. Kombucha products are sold commercially, and are considered to be a trendy health drink according to RS. Science has confirmed the presence of antioxidants and probiotics in the fermented products but without clinical trials, we can't say it's "healthy" in Wiki voice, but we can certainly include what is stated in RS.  I don't understand what the head-scratching is all about or why the same group of editors are trying so hard to make the drink appear dangerous. That's FDA's job, not ours.  Jiminy Cricket, 25 case reports is hardly worth mentioning beyond the FDA warning about safe prepartion and it was repealed long ago.
 * MEDRS considers reviews to be the most reliable. We are in compliance with NPOV, MEDRS, and FRINGE by including scientifically supported information, properly identifying it, and sourcing it to RS per MEDRS.
 * The conclusions of the two 2014 reviews are in peer reviewed journals with editorial boards consisting of highly credible experts/academics.
 * The NBC coverage (there are also several other 3rd party sources with similar information) is another RS because it was written by qualified nutritionist.
 * The fringe claims of toxicity or death are not prominent in any of the aforementioned sources and should not be given UNDUE in the Kombucha article. That's pretty much covers what PAGs tell us.
 * Editors who may have difficulty understanding any of the information I've provided above might want to review the ARBCOM case on Fringe Science and the conclusion regarding NPOV. Atsme 📞📧 02:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly the ArbCom case on fringe claims may be relevant - specifically in regard to your repeated ridiculous characterisations of reliably-sourced statements that kombucha has been associated with fatalities as 'fringe'. Do you want to take this to ArbCom, or would you prefer someone else to do so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And further to this, can you please explain why you are simultaneously claiming that "toxicity/death claims are fringe" and asserting that a source which explicitly makes such claims is RS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A news story like the NBC article is a reliable source for non-health information but it cannot be used to support health claims as it does not conform to MEDRS. No one is trying to make the drink appear dangerous. The majority of editors working on the article are attempting to provide an accurate, neutral summary article that includes an accurate, neutral summary of any benefits or risks associated with Kombucha consumption. The current version of the article does this. Ca2james (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The mention of anthrax recently added to the article is more dubious than the mentions of related deaths. A single case from Iran becomes an 'association' apparently relevant enough to be included in the article.Dialectric (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I came here to say exactly that, Dialectric. This addition is the epitome of fringe. Why has no one removed it?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the edit does not contain any material which is in violation of WP:FRINGE guideline. You might have been trying to argue that the edit is unduly weighted, but that's something for a different board to consider. jps (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The following sentence was deleted from the article. A 2003 Edzard Ernst systematic review found that the mostly unclear benefits do not outweigh the known risks. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes unclear why? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because its scientifically unsupported, that's why. For the same reason we can't link the death of an athlete to an energy drink he consumed just prior to his death. For the same reason we can't link case reports to Atrazine, or GMF.  For the same reason we cannot say kombucha has curative properties but we can say it is a healthy drink for the same reasons black tea is considered to be and is scientifically supported in at least 3 Journal reviews. Case reports linking kombucha products to toxicity and/or death are anecdotal and do not meet the lowest standards of MEDRS - it doesn't matter how many reviews those claims are published in, remember?   FDA doesn't seem to be concerned, either - they pulled their warning.  The case reports included in the Ernst review were poor, nonspecific, scientifically unsupported and did not confirm causality much less that it had anything at all to do with the drink.  It involved a small group of people, all of which had other issues to boot. I am amazed by the questions being asked and the statements being made by medical editors because quite frankly this is information even a layperson can decipher. Why should we treat kombucha any differently from the way we treat other drink articles that fall in the same category?  I really don't see where this noticeboard is helpful considering the same editors are arguing the same points and we're not getting any feed back from uninvolved medical editors. --Atsme 📞📧 01:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm uninvolved but not a medical editor. Having said that, I would have thought that the Ernst source would meet WP:MEDRS. Personally, I would drink it if I tried it and liked it, and not if I didn't like it. By the way, jps, I'm not sure that all fermentation carries risks - risks over and above preparation of any food and drink - otherwise I wouldn't make yoghurt or sourdough bread. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am uninvolved and not a medical editor, but I have a background in chemistry. There do not need to be clinical trials of kombucha itself to evaluate health benefits; if the compounds it contains are present in high enough concentrations and those compounds have well-established health benefits, the claim can be made. Both the presence and the activity of the compounds (vitamin C, for example) can be established with existing literature. This does not allow the article to ascribe the health benefits directly to the drink; it should be in the form "X contains Y, which does Z."

The usnic acid content of kombucha scares me. I was reminded of aflatoxin, a poison produced by fungi that occasionally contaminates crops. I have to leave it to someone else to research the usnic acid content of kombucha products further. If the risk of a batch of kombucha being contaminated with dangerous levels of usnic acid is, say, 1 × 10-12, eventually someone will die from that toxin.

Several editors have pointed out that other foods have associated risks, implying that any risks associated with kombucha would be acceptable ones. (It may be the case that this is an acceptable risk to almost everyone, but if it is a known risk, it should be discussed here.) I'm reminded of FDA's term GRAS, "generally recognized as safe". I can't speak for the editors here, of course, but many kombucha drinkers believe the drink removes 'toxins' from the body. Among those toxins are, presumably, the chemicals on FDA's GRAS list. Other foods carry risks, but we shouldn't treat the usnic acid content of kombucha any differently than we treat the mercury content of salmon. Roches (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Pfeiffer Treatment Center
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeiffer_Treatment_Center this stub seems to unduly promote a fringe theory. 82.132.245.114 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have proposed it for deletion. No indication that it's notable, though I don't quite see the fringe issue. Huon (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Orthomolecular psychiatry is definitely a fringe issue. jps (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shooting
Could I please get a third opinion on the include-ability of multiple shooter conspiracy theories related to the 2012 Aurora shooting? The most recent thread is Talk:2012 Aurora shooting. VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:VQuakr is the only one expressing disbelief that the 4 short paragraphs, which are very well sourced with notable mainstream media coverage, ought not be added. This user has claimed WP:FRINGE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:SYN, WP:RS & WP:PRIMARY, but again, all of this is very well sourced, not taken out of context and only appears at the bottom of the article, less notable than "On July 23 in Sierra Vista, Arizona, a moviegoer's confrontation with an intoxicated man with a backpack at a The Dark Knight Rises screening led to 'mass hysteria'". Michael Kelley of Business Insider as well as the Washington Post Editorial Board, KUSA and Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC all overtly question the single shooter theory. This is a large contingent within mainstream media. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now you've got two people expressing disbelief that the 4 short paragraphs ought not to be added. I find your WP:ADVOCACY of them to be indicative of someone on a WP:SOAPbox. I would not hesitate to guess that you actually believe this conspiracy theory. Great. Only, you should argue for it elsewhere an not on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read through all the sources? Which one doesn't meet wikipedia's notability guidelines? Wondering why your WP:ADVOCACY is for the non-neutral status quo for Holmes & the shooting, both of whose articles do nothing but condemn him. There is a significant volume of dissent even within mainstream media. A living person deserves few well sourced reasons, at the bottom of the article, indicating that many have questioned the hole-filled narrative presented by investigators. Without even mentioning those who believe that Holmes, who has not been sentenced, was not the mastermind of the shooting is biased. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY does not apply to individual sources; it applies to articles. No one is arguing that the shooting is not notable. Feel free to, for the first time, present reliable sources on the article talk page per my request (hint: neither you posted on this thread qualify; the first does not promote a conspiracy theory and the second fails WP:RS). VQuakr (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read through all the sources. Color me extremely unimpressed. Special pleading and wild speculation are not supposed to have a home in Wikipedia. You are better served in your hopes to show that this is a significant perspective in advocating for more reliable sources to show that this storyline is worthy of notice. Maybe start with some of the journalists currently covering the trial, for example. You can tweet at them and see if they're willing to investigate your ideas. But please stop with your original research here. jps (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You've evidently forgotten about me. I too express disbelief that these four short paragraphs ought to not be added. DisuseKid (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Domestic violence against men
More eyes seem needed on the article Domestic violence against men. There have been multiple attempts over the last couple of weeks to delete the last paragraph of the Gender Symmetry section and replace it with primary sourced content. The longstanding content states that domestic violence is considered a more severe public health problem for females, as they are more likely to be severely injured or killed via intimate partner violence than vice versa. However, multiple attempts have been made to delete this and replace it with a string of primary sources that state the opposite –that males are more likely to suffer severe injury at the hands of females via domestic violence, or else just as likely. This appears to be a theory promoted by the Men's rights movement, that to my understanding is considered a fringe theory, but the edits appear to attempt to promote this as widely accepted and factual in Wikipedia’s voice. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The overarching article: Violence against men seems to suffer from some WP:SYNTH problems. jps (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Time for a page on crisis actors?
There's a great deal of chatter amongst certain groups about crisis actors -- supposed people who show up at various incidents (mostly mass shootings and bombings) whose presence proves in the eyes of conspiracy theorists a connectedness and stagedness to these events. There's a lot of Snopes pieces discussing crisis actors claims. Seems like a noteworthy fringe subject. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I know the phenomenon you mean, though non-fringe sources are scarce. There's also conflation with real-life disaster-drill actors (and disaster drill should actually be an article). The phrase is used in RSes, e.g., and there are blog posts about it e.g. , but I don't know of RS writeups of the phenomenon that do the original research in such a manner that we could use it - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They are usually associated with false flag, but here even that page doesn't reflect conspiratorial theories as to recent domestic events being these. Pandeist (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are likely just enough reliable sources for a short article, but I'm afraid that I am not interested in taking the lead on it. Most seem to pertain to a particular man associated with Sandy Hook. I found other sources here, here, and here. - Location (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This was in a discussion relating to Sandy Hook recently. IIRC the deleted article Predictive programming was discussed right after the Sandy Hook one, and it made more direct reference to crisis actors.

There should be an article on this. If there isn't, then it can be alleged that Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy, a legitimate concern in some fringe areas. If there is an article, then at least there is an opportunity to try to describe the phenomenon objectively. Roches (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is what you mean: "If there isn't an article, some will allege that Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy. If there is an objective article, some will allege that Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy." - Location (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Herbal Remedies


Spammy and replete with poorly-sourced medical claims as is, but - should there even be an article on Scottish Herbal Remedies? - seems a bit regional ... Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there other similarly-themed articles focused on other regions? - Location (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If Category:Herbalism is to be believed, apart perhaps from Georgian folk medicine (which smells of copyvio) it doesn't seem so. Alexbrn (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that this is too regional... I think anything that is worth keeping could be merged into the broader Herbal remedies article. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Scottish Herbal Remedies. There's no evidence this exists as a separate subject, as far as I can see, and the article itself is... differently wonderful. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Graphology
This article seems to have deteriorated since it was last raised here, and is seeing activity from a new account alongside the graphology content at Projective test‎. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

An ANI Discussion of Possible Interest
There is a discussion over at ANI involving an editor accused of aggressively promoting fringe/conspiracy theories. The discussion can be found here for those interested. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Intellect amplification
Some sort of WP:OR quantum fringe theory. Synthesis of sources given. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Alex Constantine

 * (})
 * (})

WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:AUTHOR may apply. Some discussion in fringe sources, but I am unable to find coverage in reliable secondary sources. I am wondering if anyone is able to find something reliable upon which to build this article. - Location (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Does a BLPPROD preclude a plain PROD? If not it should be PRODed, if so it should be AFDed, as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Still eligible. Previous BLPPROD does not negate a future regular PROD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And thus PRODed - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll note that Feral House is a real publisher (of curiosities, esoterica and fringe), so if e.g. his books got notice, there should be sources concerning them ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can summarise the independently sourced content of that article thus:
 * Alex Constantine wrote The Covert War Against Rock, published in 2000 by Feral House.
 * The rest has no independent sources whatsoever. I think pruning it of material not drawn from reliable independent sources would be in order, what say? Guy (Help!) 21:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Peak : We're running out of everything.
Besides the better-known Peak oil, there are articles claiming that the sky is falling not only over the oil refineries but over fields and mines of all other sorts:


 * Peak coal
 * Peak copper
 * Peak food
 * Peak gas
 * Peak gold
 * Peak oil
 * Peak phosphorus
 * Peak soil
 * Peak uranium
 * Peak water

This is just the list from Peak wheat, the one I found first. That article had a claim that wheat production in China was in trouble and that China would soon be the largest importer of wheat. Readily available statistics (I used indexmundi.com) showed that China produced, in 2014, 12 times more wheat than was imported by the largest importer, Egypt. I added this to the article, and I suspect many other peak claims do not hold up to a few minutes worth of scrutiny. Roches (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Many are probably wrong. But have they been noted anywhere? I haven't heard of most of those under those names, even the ones I know there are concerns over ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Peak oil, peak gas, peak uranium and peak phosphorus are all definitely notable - those all have mainstream media coverage going back decades, along with geopolitical analyses from various militaries around the world. I suspect that peak food and peak water belong there as well, but I can't remember any papers or reports off-hand. Kolbasz (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * From Peak Gold: World mined gold production has peaked four times since 1900: in 1916, 1940, 1971, and 2001, each peak being higher than previous peaks. The latest peak was in 2001, when production reached 2,600 metric tons, then declined for several years.[5] Production started to increase again in 2009, spurred by high gold prices, and achieved record new highs each year in 2012, 2013, and in 2014, when production reached 2,860 tons.[6] Somebody was either being ironic or doesn't know what "peak gold" actually means... Geogene (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like original research to me. Identifying every local maximum on the plot of production vs. time is not what this particular Malthusian catastrophe prediction is about. jps (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also worried by the fact that the only sources in Peak Gold seem to be either primary sources used for original research, or quotes from the CEOs of gold companies. I would consider putting it on AFD; it seems to be a term thrown around by a few goldbug blogs and personal websites, but I'm not sure there's enough coverage by reliable sources to support an article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Frass
is a monograph on a homeopathy proponent that reads like a PR biography. Frass is probably notable but this article looks very promotional. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just added a WP:N tag, if we cannot find a good secondary source that attests to this subject's notability I'd upgrade to a proposed deletion. Also, have you noticed User:Ventus55's oddly specific subjects of interest in editing. This editor mostly seems to write about German-speaking biologists. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I suspect he is associated with the institution at which Frass worked. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob Lazar
I am trying to figure out whether this article is worth a WP:FRINGEBLP and, if so, what sources we should use for it. Right now it appears fairly bloated.

jps (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As always, strip the subject's primary sources per WP:REDFLAG. See what remains after that. - Location (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a potentially notable crank on the face of it - I have just bought REVELATIONS, so let's see what m. Vallée has to say. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with guy, seems like a notable enough nutter. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Lazar's pretty famous in the field of alternative views, he's someone we should have an article on - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Arkaim and Aryans
The section at Arkaim is sourced only to Anatole Klyosov and not to any peer reviewed scientific journal. It's basically fringe and I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources. I just removed some stuff about Stonehenge which was even fringier. I could take this to NPOVN I guess. I took it to RSN and was told it wasn't a reliability issue as he's attributed. Arkaim has had a lot of weird claims made about it. Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The sub-section on Klyisov is contained withing a broader section headed: "In pseudoarchaeology and national mysticism"... so the article does (sort of) acknowledge his Fringiness.  We should keep that context in mind when addressing this.  My first reaction is to question whether Klyosov and his "findings" deserve an entire sub-heading to itself... even within this context. Setting any theory apart under its own sub-header gives the theory a fair amount of weight... I would say UNDUE weight.  And so I think that the section needs a restructuring, whether we keep the Klyosov stuff or not.
 * Which leads to the next question - whether to keep the current text... trim it... or omit it completely When figuring out whether (and how much) to mention something that is fringe in an article, we need to explore just how fringe it is... asking whether it is "noteworthy fringe", "popular fringe" or "fringe of the fringe"?  To answer that, you need to look at both mainstream sources and other fringe sources.  I would  define "noteworthy fringe" as something that has been noted by mainstream sources (even if it is only to debunk it)... "popular fringe"  is noted by other fringe sources... while "fringe of the fringe" is something that has been essentially ignored by everyone except it's proponents.  It is probably DUE weight to give "Noteworthy fringe" claims a small paragraph in an article such as this... I would say it is DUE weight to give "Popular Fringe" claims a passing mention (if it isn't at least mentioned, readers familiar with the claims will wonder why)... and I would say "fringe of the fringe" claims can be omitted completely per UNDUE.  I don't know enough about the topic to opine on this specific case... but from what Doug tells us, it sure sounds as if Klyosov is either "popular fringe" or "fringe of the fringe".  So either trim or cut completely. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For this specific issue I'd normally look to see if there are reliable sources discussing the claim, and if not cut it out entirely. Doug Weller (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari
Hi everyone. There is an ongoing discussion at the talk page for Vani Hari which could use some input. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Anatole Klyosov


An abysmal article, but is this a notable crank? Guy (Help!) 12:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article history and it's talk page, there are definitely POV and COI issues (from both adherents and opponents)... so it definitely needs some oversight by independent editors. As to the notability question... apparently, opponents are actually publishing rebuttals to Klyosov's work (instead of simply ignoring him) which is an indication that he is probably Notable enough by our standards. Whether he is a crank or not I have no idea... I don't know the subject matter well enough to opine on that. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you look with more attention at the article and its talk page you will notice that this is a subject of many lengthy discussions involving many experienced users. You hurry too much with your accusatory and weakly-ethical claims. You probably have to join the discussion at the talk pages of related articles and argue with people who are already there. --ssr (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be careful about accusing neutral administrators of being "weakly ethical". I have no dog in this fight, I am just looking at the actual content and seeing primary sourced material by an author who is identified as having controversial views, published in a journal of no significance whatsoever, and without any independent support for the significance of those ideas. You'd need a pretty robust argument to retain that, and agreement of a small cadre of editors on an article likely to attract partisans falls well short of meeting the standard necessary to satisfy WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a neutral administrator, you may want to be careful about referring to a BLP subject as a "crank".- MrX 14:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And later post threat-like appeals like "be careful about" when pointed to possible ethical problems related to this. And later accusing me of edit-warring for just one undo (making two undos in a row meanwhile). --ssr (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I called him a crank because that is what our article shows him to be. See WP:SPADE. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SPADE is an essay. WP:BLP, on the other hand, is policy. I can't believe I have to explain to an admin why referring to a BLP subject with a pejorative is a bad idea. You too !- MrX 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * People are allowed to share their opinions of others on this website in discussion fora. I can't believe I have to explain that. WP:BLP is not a suicide pact. jps (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a proposal to add "crank" or "crackpot" to the article? Per Crank (person) (to which Crackpot contains a redirect): "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. This seems accurate. Of course we would want reliable sourcing if this terminology were to be used in the article, but the use of pejoratives on talk pages is not forbidden. - Location (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not suggesting it's a blockable offense, but it sure does lower the quality of discussion. Carry on.- MrX 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. We pussyfoot around these issues too much at Wikipedia. It's more important to get the information right than to keep the discourse quality high, IMHO. jps (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a crackpot, but his pre-1990 activity makes him notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's imagine all who used offenses here are themselves the same (for whatever reasons, I'm sure there are lots). Now, with them knowing who they are, let them enjoy that. --ssr (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense, I'm afraid. I guess English is not your first language? Please rephrase it, I would like to understand your point. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a side remark generally unrelated to the subject of articles in question. By now, the articles were collectively reworked and all of the issues seem to have been addressed. Yes, English is not my first language. You can easliy forget about my remark, it is not related to the articles. --ssr (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, your remark is pure and unobstructed personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Read above: "It's more important to get the information right than to keep the discourse quality high". --ssr (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The prinicpal problem is that we have (or had: I removed them, but people are reverting a few) multiple citations to Lysov which are WP:PRIMARY sources for controversial or potentially claims, from someone whose views are clearly idiosyncratic, and the source is an online-only "journal" with no impact factor. This is nto remotely difficult. That is precisely the kind of content we should not include. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Saqqara Bird
Goes rapidly downhill after the lead, with the majority of the article dedicated to "Egyptian physician, archaeologist, parapsychologist and dowser" (yes, really) Khalil Messiha's idea that it was an ancient airplane. Even the more down-to-earth hypotheses are problematically sourced, with some apparent WP:OR/WP:SYN going on. Kolbasz (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If there has been any actual archaeological discussion on this artifact, I can't find it. The only "scholarly" discussion I've been able to find is a mention in an article in the Journal of Scientific Exploration... Kolbasz (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been some discussion of this being an example of pseudoarcheology, though (Sommer, Morgana. "Pseudoarchaeology and the Ancient Astronaut Theory: An Analysis of a Modern Belief System." (2012)). Also the (redlinked) tomb and its alledged owner worry me. Google scholar yields the above reference and a reference to a 2005 dig uncovering a Ptolemeic mummy of a man by this name. That too late to be this tomb. So i think one Padi-imen-em-ipethtml, who actually has a known tombibid., might be intended, though this tomb is in Thebes. Apart from finding out that this is probably not Padiimenipet fils de Sôterlouvre.fr whose mummy is displayed in the Louvre I found no connections whatsoever to any model airoplanes. At the very least, this needs some clearing up, but it does not bode well for the quality of the article as a whole. Kleuske (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out! AFAICT though, "Pseudoarchaeology and the Ancient Astronaut Theory" is just someone's bachelor's thesis - so I'd neither rely on it for reliability nor notability. Kolbasz (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have missed this. So far as I know, this is about all that can be found that I think we can use. I haven't looked at the Journal of Scientific Exploration but that's a fringe source also. I'll ask Ken Feder, an archaeologist who writes about pseudoarchaeology. Doug Weller (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought this is a pretty famous fringe concept.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Any good leads from Feder? Kolbasz (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Doug Weller (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Disneyland measles outbreak
A very small number of editors seem determined ot minimise mention of the 2014 measles outbreak in - using a variety of arguments that sound suspiciously like the excuses given by Jake Blues tot he mystery woman. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out on the talk page that it is poor form to accuse those who wish to exclude the material of being anti-vaxxers. There's a clear case for inclusion in my opinion, but nothing to be gained from assuming that those seeking its exclusion are motivated by anti-vaccine motivations (as opposed to, say, being Disney fans). —Tom Morris (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A new discussion on the talk page
I have opened a discussion on the talk page about the possibility of creating a subpage on which we could list articles that are frequently the object of pro-Fringe editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ġebel ġol-Baħar
Fringe article that I've worked on. Creator just re-added material sourced to a blog. Doug Weller (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See reply on the article's talk page. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably best to reply there. Good faith non-fringe editor but disagreement on sourcing. Doug Weller (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology should not be a child of Category:Pseudoscience
Pseudoarchaeology is a fringe type of archaeology, not fringe science, as archaeology in English speaking countries is not taught as a science but as part of humanities or social sciences. I tried to change this but was reverted, and have started a discussion at Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology. I did this after reading the discussion on the talk page here about a new list, and my desire to have it as a separate subject at Wikiproject Skepticism. Doug Weller (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There really ought to be an overarching category of "pseudo-scholarship", I think. These are very much linked topics, they have a common ancestor but are not on the same branch I would agree. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Transhumanist politics
Talk:Transhumanist politics - can we come up with a new form of existence for a political party, by claiming third-party sources citing a publicity campaign constitute RS verification for the claims made? - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Tepper Aviation

 * (})
 * (})

There are reliable sources for the CIA-Tepper Aviation connection (e.g. ), however, anything CIA tends to drum up original research by fringe thinkers. My impression is that this article has been built upon a fair amount of primary source material and OR, but I'm hoping I can get additional opinions. (Not sure if this is related to Atlantic Gulf Airlines founded by Tom Tepper.) Thanks! - Location (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Having an article that reports what reliable secondary sources say about the airline is one thing. But huge sections sourced to WP:PRIMARY business records reeks of investigative reporting, which is not what Wikipedia does. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy Hunt

 * (})
 * (})

Dorothy Hunt, wife of Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt, died in the 1972 crash of United Airlines Flight 553 carrying $10,000. Depending upon who you believe, the money was earmarked for legal defense, an investment, or hush money. As incredible as it sounds, some people believe that the CIA brought down an airliner in Chicago in order to kill her. And if you believe Spartacus, apparently Robert J. Groden, Carl Oglesby, Peter Dale Scott, Sherman Skolnick, and Alan J. Weberman are among those who believe she was murdered. Question: Is a stand-alone article warranted or should this be redirected to United Airlines Flight 553? Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, a stand-alone biography isn't remotely warranted - the article is a classic WP:COATRACK, using a supposed 'biography' as a platform to promote a conspiracy theory. If any material from this belongs in the 'conspiracy theories' article, it needs a complete rewrite too - as it stands it is full of weasel words, and appears to lack proper sourcing for several of the statements made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a really bad article. Even beyond it's being a Pro-FRINGE coatrack the sourcing is incredibly poor. I'd merge anything that is reasonably sourced and not already in the conspiracy article and then just redirect it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that no stand alone biography is needed as this is a BIO1E. I recommend just redirecting to the plane crash article instead instead of pushing readers to the section discussing a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

✅
 * Thank you. I've cleaned-up the redirects. - Location (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture again
A pro-acupuncture editor is insisting on tagging as having a "systemic bias towards Western scientific sources". This is, of course, fatuous: there is no such thing as Western science, there's just science, and since acupuncture is portrayed as a medical intervention rather than a religion then core policy means that scientific sources are exactly where we should source most content. You might as well tag evolution as having a sysmtemic bias towards materialist scientific sources. Guy (Help!) 06:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Rodney Stich (again)
Seeking additional input at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks! - Location (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Scientology
The article on Scientology is stale and undergoing revision and peer review. There's no active dispute or editwars, we're just seeking advice (or aid) on improving the article. Feoffer (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's a refreshingly different post from what we normally get around here. I will take a look when I have a few minutes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

William S. Donaldson / Donaldson Report

 * (})
 * (})
 * (})


 * (})
 * (})

William S. Donaldson wrote a report (i.e. the Donaldson Report) stating that terrorists brought down TWA Flight 800 via two missiles and that there was a conspiracy to cover it up. Do either of these articles have stand-alone notability, or should they be redirected to TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories? Thanks! - Location (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support D-R for both articles. There is nothing that warrants a stand alone article for either subjects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that. It looks like Orangemike took care of it. - Location (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

United States House Select Committee on Assassinations

 * (})
 * (})

In Talk:United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, additional opinions are requested regarding the inclusion of material about Willem Oltmans and his claims regarding George de Mohrenschildt. Thanks! - Location (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The same IP appears to also be adding this material to the George de Mohrenschildt article. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where to start with that one. It appears to be another crap compilation of primary sources and fringe sources about someone of marginal notability. - Location (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fred Crisman

 * (})
 * (})

Fred Crisman was a hoaxer. He made claims that led to the "Maury Island incident" (see previous discussions on WP:FTN here and here), then he and other said he was involved in the assassination of JFK. Regarding the first, I find a trivial mention in GNews. Regarding the second, he is briefly mentioned as "Fred Lee Chrisman" in the HSCA's report discussion of the three tramps. Everything else appears to come from fringe sources or primary sources (i.e. Jim Garrison's investigation). Is there enough for a stand-alone article or should this be redirected? - Location (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you have any thoughts on this one, but I'm pinging you for feedback based on your familiarity with the "Maury Island incident" and the previous discussions on it that you opened. Thanks! - Location (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems Crisman is considered within fringe conspiracy believers to be a nexus of somethingorother, according to this. If more objective sources such as that one could be found, there might be a chance the article could be written from a more disinterested academic point of view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I've added it to the article. - Location (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article looks much better after LuckyLouie's work. This appears to fall under that category of "notable hoaxer". - Location (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This might be appropriate to include as an EL if it could be found on a non-crank hosting site. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have edited the description of Category:People associated with the assassination of John F. Kennedy to state "...people who are known or alleged to have been identified with the assassination..." because of this article.(diff) - Location (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Films" by Gary Null
appears to be a one-man press office for Gary Null. The "films" on which he has been creating articles are of course anti-science propaganda. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And he has at least one more he hasn't posted yet underway in his sandbox. Interestingly the sandbox is just a concatenation of all the articles he's worked on so it's a handy quick reference to what he's been up to. -- Krelnik (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't be silly JzG! Totally incorrect statement! Gary Null is a notable figure who has made over 50 films and before I made some entries have a guess how many of his films were in Wikipedia? This is after all supposed to be an encyclopedia, is it not?Mr Bill Truth (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CGTW # 14 applies. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Null is not a "notable figure", he is a minor crank. The total budget for all his "films" would probably not cover the catering bill for a day's shooting on a real movie. The correct number of these films to have separate Wikipedia articles is probably zero, but redirects to a list on the article on Null might be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if the existance of Gary Null and some of his films on Wikipedia offend your sensibilities JzG, but the day of Wikipedia being an extension of people's belief systems or the will / greed-lust of powerful entities has not been officially sanctioned by any higher power. Not that I can see yet. Very sorry Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less about the existence of Gary Null. I do care that his fatuous opinions and inconsequential "films" are promoted as if they have some objective merit, when there is no actual evidence that this is so. There are bullshit movies that are notable (Zeitgeist, What The Bleep etc). For these, a decent body of independent critical analysis exists. Null's "films" have for the most part achieved nothing beyond acknowledgement of their existence, and Wikipedia is not a directory of conspiracist claptrap "films" or anything else. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking things over quickly it appears that Poverty Inc. got some notice but the others didn't. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason for that might be that a film with the same name was released in the same year, although some notables are interviewed in both films. I support JzG's proposal: these articles should redirect to a list of films at Gary Null. I wouldn't object to brief summaries (say 30-50 words at most) of the content. But there's no need to reproduce the production details here; external links can provide that information. Roches (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Evangeline Adams
Seems to be almost entirely sourced to very biased sources. The standard historical crank page - lots of praise, no mainstream commentary. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The PBS link appears to be the only reliable source, but it doesn't give much information on her. It does appear that she is likely notable per GNews archives. - Location (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed some of the more obviously bogus sources. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ourang Medan
A fringe feast of spicy speculation and rancid sources featuring a dash of WP:OR for flavor. Includes an EL link to what's obviously a crank letter received by the CIA labeled as a "CIA memo" on the subject. Bon appetit! - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Gary Null (copied from COIN)



 * Gary Nulll, his films, and articles into which references to films have been added
 * (created by MBT. up for AfD here)
 * (created by MBT. up for Afd here)
 * (created by MBT)
 * (created by MBT. PRODed here)
 * (created by MBT. PRODed here)
 * Articles to which references to films above were added by MBT, or created in the course of working on films
 * (created by MBT, used as source in film article)
 * (created by MBT, used as source in film article)
 * (created by MBT, used as source in film article)
 * (created by MBT, used as source in film article)
 * (created by MBT, used as source in film article)
 * (created by MBT, used as source in film article)
 * (created by MBT, used as source in film article)


 * Film festival showing these films and its sponsor
 * (created by MBT) Articles for deletion/Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival
 * (created by MBT) Articles for deletion/Black Mountain Press


 * Anti-GMO generally
 * (created by MBT)


 * PSCI/alt med generally


 * All articles created here - several are redirects per SEO practices

Mr Bill Truth has been writing promotionally about Gary Null and his films, film festivals that show his films, as well as anti-GMO topics and PSCI/altmed generally. After seeing this thread at the FRINGE noticeboard, i approached MBT on his Talk page here, asking about any connection with external interests relevant to his editing, which did not go well. I have had content disputes with MBT so this is not surprising. It may be that there is no COI and MBT is using Wikipedia for advocacy; COI is a subset of advocacy. I will not comment here further and will leave this for the community to discuss. I have notified MBT of this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't got time to refer to this in full as I have other things on the go. But in due course I would like to show you that I believe Jytdog is not being forthright. If this is being used to slander me or get me kicked off then this is wrong and highly immoral. Of course I totally dispute all what has been said! Yes I have been motivated to make a balance in Wikipedia as something was pointed out to me recently. This has alerted me to something that is taking place. All articles that are notable belong here. Sadly if some parties don't like them being here because they represent something they're opposed to, then that is unfortunate but no grounds for censorship. I'm here to do my bit for Wikipedia and get articles that deserve to be here created and improved. Please take note of what I have put here as I do intend to revisit this soon. Please whoever oversees this, keep an open mind, be honest which I know you'll be and we'll see how this act done here will evolve. We might be able to use this process here to turn up some other info that may be of interest so those who have an interest. More on that later. Many thanks in advance  Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing anything that immediately sets off COI alarms, but I agree that the advocacy of the edits is problematic. This isn't really the place to deal with that though. SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have AfD'd a couple more of the articles (italics). I think this user is a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The World According to Monsanto
Articles for deletion/The World According to Monsanto.

Looks like it may be functioning as a fringe soapbox for anti-GMO positions, but I could have missed something or perhaps cleanup is possible.

jps (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Crop circle
Despite the fact that there are no reliable sources from the last decade or so which indicate that there is any controversy whatsoever about the fact that human beings create crop circles, it seems that some editors would sincerely like to hold out hope for an alternative explanation. More help there would be appreciated. (The claim that simply asserting that humans create crop circles is "too sweeping" is particularly precious.)

jps (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * An editor with quite a long block log for edit warring and whatnot, is now WP:CANVASSING in the hopes that someone will agree with him on this topic.  The actual words he wants to put in the article is seen here .  Please join in on the relevant talk page though.  The more feedback on this, the better.   D r e a m Focus  20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do WP:FOC. As already pointed out to you, WP:SEEKHELP specifically recommends the use of noticeboards such as this one. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is policy for a very good reason.
 * Would I be far wrong to guess that the very best evidence for a crop circle being created by something other than people would be very poor evidence combined with an appeal to ignorance? --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bumping this thread: a WP:SPA is insistent on trying to pretend that something other than human cause is plausible. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not helping by edit warring with them, and then dropping warnings on their talk page. Have you tried discussing the content civilly on the article talk page?- MrX 00:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Though the warning was over the top and rudely inaccurate in its characterisation of me and my editing interests, Guy's latest edit to the article itself is fine. It doesn't push the Fundamentalist Skeptic view unsupported by any source. It remains to be seen how long it will survive before the more extreme version is forced back in. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that Guy who dropped the warning on me is an admin, who is also directly involved in the editing of the article. That does seem to be a bit of an abuse of the system. Administrators Ghughesarch (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Admins can issue warnings just like any other editor. If he had blocked you while in a content dispute, that might have been more problematic depending on the circumstances. I see nothing improper here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the lede to conform to what we know about crop circles. I expect more pushback as apparently I'm a "hard-line skeptic" or something. jps (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To judge by the talk page for the article itself, and what has been said here, you seem to be the only person who has edited on the subject recently who remains unhappy about the wording everybody else accepted a few days ago. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, and now we have User:Ghughesarch writing in the lede that a list of crop circles published by the Guardian somehow shows that it isn't clear whether humans made all the crop circles or not. . jps (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears that in your desperation to edit disruptively, you didn't even notice that that edit was made by Guy, not by me, and that the source given contains the specific statement, "It is still open to dispute whether some are caused by natural phenomena or all created by human hand." Ghughesarch (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As above. The Guardian makes the point that I think Ghughesarch may have been making all along: there is legitimate doubt as to whether they were *all* man-made, or whether some might be of natural origin. There's no evidence at all that they are of extraterrestrial origin, so that covers both feasible alternatives and IMO establishes the appropriate balance between them. I take back my assertion that Ghughesarch is an SPA, and apologise: check the edit history, there's a fair bit of activity "way back when", it's a superficial judgment based on recent edits and not really justified. We should not succumb to siege mentality - just because there are a million nutters who want to change Wikipedia to reflect their delusions does not mean that every time our edits are challenged, the challenger is one of them. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia would allow me to "thank" Guy for that comment, I would. Perfect summation of the issue. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why we think Katy Stoddard should have a lede-worthy opinion on this topic is beyond me, but at least we should attribute it then as I find no other reliable sources which hold to this peculiar and journalistically "false equivalence" opinion. jps (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus seems to think that Sara C. Nelson is a reliable source for the contention that some crop circles are not of human origin. Why do we let people who uncritically accept dreck such as that make reverts on these kinds of articles? jps (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about John Capron and Patrick Moore as sources for the idea that some circles are made by natural phenomena? Patrick Moore's letter to the New Scientist is reproduced here http://oldcropcircles.weebly.com/uk-1963-charlton.html He also mentions the possibility of hoaxing in that case, and dismisses it as "wildly improbable".Ghughesarch (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, your recent edits give the impression (entirely wrong on both counts) that only one person believes that a non-human natural cause for some crop circles is open to dispute, and that only one obscure professor at an American university believes that they "fall within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes" (which is not the same as stating that they are all hoaxes). So I'm reverting them back to the last sensible edit. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Moore is describing what he came to the conclusion was a crater caused by a meteorite. He states that there were some nearby areas of approximately circular "spiral fattening", which he suggests may have been caused by "violent air-currents produced by the falling body". Nowhere in the letter does he make any statement about crop circles not related to meteor craters, and accordingly nothing he says can be of relevance to the crop circle article - since it isn't about phenomena related to craters caused by falling bodies. Your suggestion that Moore's letter is relevant is pure WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another excellent illustration of confirmation bias in the above comment. Moore does not state that the crater was caused by a meteorite, though he initially felt that that was the likely explanation. It is OR on your part to extrapolate from that that crop circles must not be related to meteor craters, and then to say that since they aren't related to meteor craters, Moore's careful observation and description of spirally-flattened circles and ellipses of wheat has nothing to do with the subject.Ghughesarch (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Learn to read. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can read. I suggest you try reading WP:CIVIL Ghughesarch (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can read, why did may make the ridiculous assertion that I stated that "crop circles must be related to meteor craters"? I said nothing of the sort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * edited. apologies, but try not throwing insults about.Ghughesarch (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Like 'confirmation bias' for example? Anyway, you can't cite what Moore said about a specific incident which he clearly put down to a falling object as evidence for any general belief about 'crop circles'. That is WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Moore's view was that the circles were caused by a natural phenomenon. So it's exactly relevant to the issue that has arisen with the recent edits to the page. Confirmation bias isn't an insult, "Learn to read" most definitely is.Ghughesarch (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is of no relevance whatsoever. Moore was writing about a specific event, and no matter how much spin you put on it, isn't a general statement about crop circles. And that is all that needs to be said on the subject. We don't base article content on WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's your last word, we'll have to disagree. That Moore's opinion was that the crop circles he examined in 1963 were caused naturally is not OR at all and it is directly relevant to the question of whether all crop circles are man made, or whether the possibility of a natural origin for some is a matter of dispute.Ghughesarch (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong venue: this should be at Talk:Crop circle, and I would like more people to contribute there because we do need to come up with a para that everyone can agree is neutral, or formulate an RfC with a couple of potential ones and settle the matter. This seems to me to be something on which reasonable people may differ so there's no need to make it a battle when it could instead be a collaboration. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Newport Tower (Rhode Island)
Should the fringe speculation about this tower appear in the lede? Seems unduly weighted to me.

jps (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The archeo-rubbish is a large part of what gives it its notability, for the last 150 years, even though it very clearly is a seventeenth century windmill (which for the US would be notable in its own right) Ghughesarch (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you should suddenly take an interest in this a couple of hours after I mentioned it on the talk page for a fairly unrelated subject though. I can't see that you have ever edited on the subject before, nor have you raised the question on the article's talk page. Ghughesarch (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you cannot accept the WP:MAINSTREAM description of this landmark in the lede. "More accurate" is really just "more fringe". Can someone else help deal with this person? It's tiresome. jps (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Enneagram of Personality
This article has survived very long without any criticism from independent sources, specifically those clarifying its pseudoscientific status. I have added the mainstream view and sources to the lead but expect it may be resisted by some folks sitting on the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew it. Apparently Wikipedia must equivocate that only "some" mainstream academics think it's pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer that Wikipedia makes unsubstantiated claims that all mainstream academics think it is pseudoscience? Most "mainstream academics" have probably never even heard of the Enneagram let alone have any views regarding it. Afterwriting (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but I find the notion that "most mainstream academics have probably never even heard of the Enneagram let alone have any views regarding it" absurd. We have an academic psychology textbook that unmistakably identifies the status of the Enneagram as pseudoscience. We have Robert Todd Carroll, well-known in the academic community as an authority on critical thinking, unambiguously identifying the Enneagram as pseudoscience. And it isn't hard to find mainstream educators citing the Enneagram as an example of pseudoscience as part of their coursework. Here's one from Michigan State University and here's one from Department of Psychology, Jacksonville State University. I'm sure we could find many more. Do you still contend that these sources do not represent a mainstream academic viewpoint, or that this viewpoint is "unsubstantiated"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect the point being made by Afterwriting is that most academics haven't expressed any opinion regarding Enneagrams at all - which makes the statement that 'some academics think it is pseudoscience' logically correct. It is however misleading, since it gives the impression that 'some academics' have expressed a contrary viewpoint. The solution is simple enough - we instead state that the academic consensus is that it is pseudoscience, or words to that effect. It should be clear enough to our readers that 'academic consensus' does not require every academic expressing an opinion on every possible topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial one. The main problem is that it is generally hard to provide a WP:RS for the undoubted fact that the majority of the relevant professional academic community considers an idea not even worth looking at, and of the few who do, all find it to be bogus. Review articles can help, in that they will normally show that the literature is in agreement, if scant. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Ruppert

 * (})
 * (})

Likely passes WP:BIO, but some of the sources look a bit sketchy. - Location (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Enfield Poltergeist
Apparently traveling about from crop circles to poltergeists, friends, it seems like we've got a case of a concern troll true believer in the paranormal.

jps (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not, actually, I just don't like the sort of aggressive skepticism you are pushing, apparently unaware that it's not a neutral point of view. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You think pointing out that magicians and skeptics revealed this particular hoax to be a hoax is pushing "aggressive skepticism"? That's rather startling. In any case, I haven't seen any reliable sources which dispute this point. Have you? jps (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Magicians and skeptics claimed to have revealed it as a hoax. Just as others who were directly involved claimed that it was not. Now, it may not suit your particular world view to have people making those claims, but it is not an objective fact that the skeptical view, just because it's the skeptical view, is true. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * People often complain that fringe viewpoints (such as the notion that poltergeists are real, supernatural powers exist, aliens abduct people, the government is beaming voices into your brain, etc.) are not being "portrayed neutrally" in article space. This essay might help clarify: WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really the issue, either in this case or with the Crop Circles article which the same editor has raised above. What is the issue is that jps is extrapolating from sources that offer rational explanations, to support the specific statement that "the case was revealed to be a hoax by magicians and sceptics". The alternative wording to which he objects is that "the case is considered to be a hoax by magicians and sceptics". That is much closer to the objective truth and it does not involve pushing a fringe viewpoint to say so. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Skeptics "concluded", not "revealed", that it was hoax (actually, they concluded that Janet cheated). "Claimed" and "revealed" in this context are WP:WEASEL words.- MrX 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank MrX for an excellent edit to the article which matches the source given and addresses the issue as far as I am concerned.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I'm not overwhelmingly happy with being described as "a concern troll true believer in the paranormal". That was not WP:CIVILGhughesarch (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It was more than just a "conclusion". They systematically showed why it was a hoax. If "revealed" is a weasel word, it's because it gives the simple exposure of the hoax too much import. The debunking was rather simple and mundane, to be honest. jps (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And now we have claims that we cannot say that the skeptics "showed" that this is a "hoax" but rather that they "concluded" it. Why is that? The source uses the word "conclude" only because the summary is found at the end of the article in the conclusion, but it is pretty clear all along the way that what the most reliable sources are doing is showing how this is a hoax. Are we offending the sensibilities of the reader by using simple wording and pointing out that skeptics showed this case was a hoax? I'm really at a loss for why editors are so fond of such delicate kid-glove handling of what's clearly a poorly executed hoax. jps (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently parked at the article are the two fringe-POV-supporting editors who responded in this thread who are in favor of marginalizing the facts of the matter (that skeptics and magicians showed that the case was a hoax). Help breaking through this nonsense would be appreciated. jps (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The best way to "break through this nonsense" would be for jps to stop making personal attacks on other editors who are trying to steer a neutral course and to stop pushing their "paranormal activity doesn't exist and anyone who believes it does is not competent to edit" agenda. It is totally unscientific to say that something doesn't exist - any reputable scientist will only say we have no reliable evidence for it. I believe that the edits made by jps to this article show clear confirmation bias. Richerman    (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is true. The scientifically accurate statement would be that there is no remotely credible evidence that such phenomena exist, all observations are generally fully consistent with other explanations, and their existence would violate multiple principles of physics as currently understood, and require a wholesale rewriting of such fundamental concepts as the laws of thermodynamics. You can't prove anegative, after all. However, as a good first approximation, it is fair to say that they can't and don't exist. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

While I thank User:LuckyLouie for allowing the baton to be passed to him, I am a bit concerned that the current lede violates WP:ITA in the sense that it may imply that only the named sceptics believe it to be a hoax when, in reality, that's the only solid evidence we have for what this "manifestation" is. Can someone who isn't likely to be knee-jerk reverted make a pass at trying to mitigate this problem? jps (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want the damn baton, I was just trying to find a workable solution. As you know, mainstream science does not issue opinions about tabloid press sensations that are subsequently exploited by paranormal hucksters. The best we have are magicians and skeptics who have looked into such things and smelled fraud. Maybe the way to go with the Enfield poltergeist article is the way Tina Resch is handled. The paranormalists opinion isn't even mentioned in the lead since it's so marginalized. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I really fail to see what the problem is here. This is not an article about a fringe theory - it's an article about some events reported by newspapers and turned into fictional drama for television. The lead says, in essence, that some, but not all, members of the Society for Psychical Research were convinced something unexplainable was happening and others who investigated found evidence of fraud. That's not giving credence to any claims - it's simply reporting what happened. We can't say what anyone else thinks was going on unless their opinions have been reported. Unfortunately one editor thinks that because poltergeist activity doesn't seem to be possible with our present understanding of how the universe works we have to say that it was all fraudulent. However, it's not for us to say that, we just report what the sources say. Making our own assumptions about what was going on would be synthesis - something that has no place in wikipedia. As is, is the article says much more about what the sceptics said than it does about the claims made by the believers. One way forward would be to include more material from sources like this that directly discuss the case.  Richerman    (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see what the problem is either - and the way Tina Resch is dealt with is to have the sentence "Skeptics and debunkers have declared the case a hoax" in the lede. That's not nearly as strong as what was causing problems in the wording preferred by some skeptics in the Enfield Poltergeist article - "revealed" to be a hoax goes beyond what the sources will support as it implies a definite and final conclusion. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't give equal validity to facilely incorrect claims. That's the angle. jps (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying "some members of the Society for Psychical Research such as Maurice Grosse and Guy Lyon Playfair believed the haunting to be genuine" is not giving validity to their claims - it's merely reporting what happened. Richerman    (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Members of the Society for Psychical Research are not reliable sources when it comes to claims of the paranormal. Mentioning their ignorance-based comments in the lede is problematically prominently promoting unreliable sources. jps (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same article? There are all sorts of third party sources. I'm not sure where you're seeing Members of the Society for Psychical Research listed as a reference for claims of the paranormal. - MrX 20:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Their opinions are referenced in the lede. jps (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's quite clear that they are their opinions and not necessarily fact. There really isn't a problem. Looking at other articles about "paranormal" topics, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that the lede for each must proclaim "this is all made up".Ghughesarch (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By paying attention to these obscure and ignorant opinions without clarifying that they are obscure and ignorant, Wikipedia is violating undue weight. jps (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of their being "believers", the view arrived at by the first two people to directly investigate the case, while it was still going on, (and who were largely responsible for bringing it to wider attention) cannot be dismissed as "obscure and ignorant" in the context of the article or the overall notability of the subject. It would be violating undue weight to have only their notions referenced in the lede, but they are set in a proper context. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that would be original research. The article is fine. Let it go.- MrX 21:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no original research. The most reliable sources indicate that poltergeists don't exist and that people who entertain the notion that they do are unreliable. Moreover, we have plenty of reliable sources that this particular incident is a hoax. That's what the article should indicate. Right now, it doesn't. jps (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * MrX is right WP:Stick Ghughesarch (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Giving equal validity to paranormal believers is against Wikipedia policy. jps (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not giving "equal validity" to believers in the paranormal, the lede is simply explaining what is claimed to have happened, and who made the claims, since that is important to an overall understanding of the subject. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re:Members of the Society for Psychical Research are not reliable sources when it comes to claims of the paranormal … actually what better sources would there be for what 'the Society for Psychical Research' believes to be true? Their beliefs are not presented as fact, I endorse most of what Ghughesarch says above. The article (about a fairly trivial incident), seems fairly sceptical to me.Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as to what those particular members thought, it's pretty much perfect. Interesting that Joshua P. Schroeder hasn't felt the need to aggressively revert as "unreliable" the doubts cast by other members of the SPR, which are mentioned in the next line.Ghughesarch (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not surprising that the two investigators who preferentially believe in psychic powers and ghost stories were the ones who credulously accepted the claims while the ones who tended to take skeptical stances did not. The reader deserves to know about this kind of confirmation bias. jps (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, we're not allowed to include original research in our edits. We're supposed to follow sources and present information from a neutral stance.- MrX 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not original research. Read the biographies that are linked on Wikipedia! They two who accepted the existence of ghosts were the ones who were duped as amateur psychic phenomena believers and the ones who were "skeptical" were known to be skeptical as professors of psychology. Do you deny this? jps (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CIRCULAR, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. - MrX 12:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * jps, you seem determined to TELL everyone that 'the believers', were credulous fools, which entails OR and is NPOV. Most of us have the necessary intelligence to form our own opinions. Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you think we should at least TELL the readers that the believers were a freelance writer and a retired inventor while those who questioned the credibility were professors of psychology? jps (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Punchline to this whole imbroglio is that we have a lede right now that I think is marginally better than what was there before. The problem as I see it is that there seems to be an implicit agreement that the opinions of the most popular members of the Society for Psychical Research are somehow most worthy of our attention. If we take WP:MAINSTREAM seriously, then we should be paying most attention to the mainstream opinions on this topic -- namely that this incident was a hoax with too much attention drawn to it by a credulous group of wishful thinkers and breathless journalists. We still have something of a equal validity problem in our lede as we are referencing the opinions of two members of the Society whose opinions are based on superstition and credulity rather than careful consideration of the possibilities associated with this haunting. In other words, Wikipedia is paying too close attention to the breathless claims when it should instead be explaining what this incident actually is. Sure, we should mention that there was a lot of sensation surrounding this story, but we would be remiss to even insinuate that this is anything like an "on one hand/on the other" situation. The lede is slightly better at this right now, but I don't think that Maurice Grosse and Guy Lyon Playfair deserve top billing. To be clear, I think that the consensus of the investigators who are currently most seriously writing on this topic is that this is a classic hoax combined with media sensation. We could do a better job at getting the lede to say this. jps (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph in the article on the Enfield Poltergeist in The Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits, 2nd ed., by Rosemary Ellen Guiley, might be useful to look at here. It says, "The case appears to be one which began with some genuine phenomena, but which devolved into trickery by the two girls, probably prompted by the attention the case received from the media and from the investigators." Granted, Guiley isn't what I would necessarily call neutral, and I'm guessing from the article that the "began" is referring to the incidents prior to the Daily Mirror being called in, and I would have some reservations about calling them "legitimate" in our article, but something like that might be useful to consider putting in the lede. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, no Rosemary Ellen Guiley. She's not even close to a reliable source. And I believe that Playfair's book claimed that real genuine supernatural stuff occurred before the press came in and prompted the girls fakery. Of course, it's obvious he came into the situation already a believer... - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think (emphasize think, I haven't checked lately), at least a few of her "reference works" are and/or were in the ALA's Guide to Reference as among the best "reference works" out there. Now, being the best of a bad lot is not necessarily enough to qualify as "reliable," and if there is any question about what she says I can certainly see directly saying "According to REG,..." in the text, but if the phrasing is in accord with other sources and/or not clearly over-the-top. it might not be bad. And, in this case, it seems to indicate that the later "events" were staged in the eyes of those who have investigated it, but leaves open the question of the "genuine"ness of the initial phenomena, which they weren't in a position to really directly investigate after the fact. Personally, I would prefer the lede contain something more like the quote than its current form, which seems to at least my eyes to give too much attention to the names of the investigators than to the address or names of those involved earlier. Just a few ideas, anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure why we'd want to put that particular opinion in Guiley's mouth when we have independent secondary source Joe Nickell, who summarizes it quite nicely: "Although she thought the outbreak might have originated paranormally (Gregory was a British parapsychologist inclined to believe in the paranormal), she concluded it had turned quickly into a farcical performance for investigators and reporters desiring a sensational story". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to know who at the ALA considers Rosemary Ellen Guiley to be the writer of the "best" reference works. Talk about bottom-of-the-barrel scraping. jps (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

BioCell Collagen


Almost certainly spam, and very likely to be the usual natural woo, but please review. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Voice stress analysis


This looks to be every bit as scientific as graphology, and somewhat less so than the polygraph, but that may just be a function of a not-terribly-good article. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Gerald Ford
I apologize in advance for taking up so much room with this one, but it appears on a page that receives 2,000 to 3,000 hits per day. The following appears in Gerald Ford:

This section appears to be cherry-picking at its finest. First, footnote #1 does not support the sentence it is citing; it is simply a rehashing of the conspiracy theory that Ford "moved the wound" using primary sources. Secondly, footnote #2 refers to an earlier version of this book, which is the Warren Commission report with a forward by Ford published by Tim Miller's The FlatSigned Press. It does support the sentence it is citing, but it is cherry-picking given that the entire forward is Ford's rejection of conspiracy theories. (BTW, Miller is a CT whose PR release incredibly cherry-picks the same sentence!) Footnotes #3, #4, and #5 refer to Ford's communications with Cartha DeLoach only 3 to 4 weeks after the assassination, which he disclosed publicly to the HSCA in 1978 testimony. I am at a loss to explain why it has so much weight in the article other to give the impression that Ford and the FBI were in cahoots to sway the outcome of the investigation. (The point about two Commission members not being sure about FBI findings is unremarkable since their investigation had just started at that point.)

I see major changes as being necessary, however, I am a bit reluctant to be bold on such a highly watched page. Thoughts? - Location (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be reluctant. Jump right it. I did already. jps (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think there are some unsupported claims here, such as "Ford said the CIA destroyed or kept from investigators critical secrets connected to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy." I am aware that Ford spoke of the CIA hiding records, but not aware that he spoke of records specifically related to the assassination. Part of this may be a POV claim that, say, documents related to operations around Cuba were suppressed - and some conspiracy theorists claim those operations were related to the assassination, therefore "critical secrets connected to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy." It is a fallacy of course to claim suppressed documents point to a conspiracy and therefore were "critical secrets" related to the assassination without knowing the content of these "critical secrets" let alone their connection, if any, to the assassination.


 * As for "moving the wound," it should be pointed out that Ford and the Commission were relying on the testimony of the doctors, who sometimes said "neck," and an erroneous sketch which placed the wound higher, though the schematics were more specific and placed the wound properly as per the autopsy photos. Despite that, Ford was correct in that where the wound was located is, technically speaking, part of the neck as the bullet chipped part of C7 on the spine which is part of the neck, as RBHarris notes. Canada Jack (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Josh Duggar
It seems a lot of Quiverfull supporters have descended on Josh Duggar and are attempting to sanitize it. Could use some eyes. BlueSalix (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The traffic appears to revolve around the content dispute as to whether the Ashley Madison reports should be included. - Location (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, a lot of Quiverful editors with colorful disciplinary records are trying to obfuscate and remove details being reported in RS. BlueSalix (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:CANVASS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What would you like us to see at WP:CANVASS, Winkelvi? BlueSalix (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen zero quiverful editors active on that page since the latest scandal broke. Could you point them out to me? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what does this have to do with fringe theories exactly? jps (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a fringe theory involved? If not, wrong venue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yin yoga
A "good article" that uncritically claims that this practice improves the flow of qi without pointing out that there is no evidence that qi exists. Should it be a "good article"?

jps (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I went through the article and was pretty appalled:

Good article reassessment/Yin yoga/1.

jps (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Does every article on Christianity have to state prominently that there is no evidence that God exists? --Nigelj (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this question anything more than trolling? jps (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yoga articles aren't getting enough attention from experienced editors. SOAP, FRINGE, COI problems galore. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am an experienced editor - I have been editing here longer than either of you. It was a serious question: In articles discussing spiritual practices and belief systems, I don't see the benefit in the relentless application of WP:FRINGE at each point on every obscure one of them. Qi is linked when first mentioned, it is qualified inline as being "said in Chinese medicine to..." and "hypothesized to improve..." Suppose every article on Christianity had to be punctuated to explain that there is scientific doubt about the archeological accuracy of parts of the Bible, uncertainty that Mary, Joseph and other saints lived exactly as described, scepticism about the virgin birth, etc. These other spiritual beliefs from can be discussed from all necessary angles in one place - e.g. in the qi article itself, as it is - and other articles can be left to get on with their topic, using links and the couching of terms that we see in this case, without having to bang fiercely on the same old drum at every turn of the way. --Nigelj (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism about the virgin birth? You better believe that has a place in Wikipedia as that obviously didn't happen. But I think that subject is handled pretty well where I've seen it discussed in Wikipedia. As far as I know, however, there aren't any articles on specific faith healing practices which mention hypothesized benefits through virgin birthing. The issue here is one of uncritical application of an idea for which there is no evidence with pseudoscientific justifications for those applications (e.g. saying that a particular practice is "hypothesized to improve" some sort of medical ailment is bad practice when there is no verifiable evidence-based hypothesis to consider -- and, no, the pseudoscientific speculations found in "Yoga Journal" do not count).

If you wanted to make a comparison between this and Christianity, the closest I can think of is in an article like baraminology where the claims of the "researchers" in that subject are subject to the fact that the very basis of their ideas is not evidence-based in spite of the pseudoscientific justifications they offer.

jps (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Herbert Hinzie Kersten
Article claims Kersten build the Georgia Guidestones, based on a film by a conspiracy theorist.. Now up for AfD. Doug Weller (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. BlueSalix (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer
Brian Josephson is reacting gleefully to the news that Rossi has secured a US patent - for a water heater, with no mention whatsoever of the fact that it's a perpetual motion device. I think it's safe to say that Rossi is on the lookout for more marks for his scam. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, the article is fairly critical and citing plenty of more mainstream opinions on such things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am amazed that this is still a thing considering that Rossi has been promoting this "breakthrough" on six month timescales for half a decade with zero to show. The warnings about cold fusion scams have been made time and time again, but for some reason each go around the same group of believers seem to think that somehow this time it will be different. Rossi has even been caught in scams in the past, but for some reason that does not dissuade his followers. At what point will it be okay to categorize this as Category:Free energy scam or something similar along with Blacklight Power, steorn, and Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell. jps (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Microwave auditory effect ‎ and Electronic harassment ‎
More eyes on the Microwave auditory effect and Electronic harassment articles would be welcome - we've had a contributor trying to add some dubiously-sourced content to both, and since he/she was warned for edit-warring, an IP and a 'new' account have joined in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, due to the number of sock/meatpuppets, I've taken this to ANI. - Location (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Presidents of the American Psychiatric Association
A list of presidents, providing little information on most, but a great deal of unsourced material on the (claimed) involvement of several individuals with MKULTRA. How much of this (if any) is true, I don't know, but it needs scrutiny by someone familiar with the topic, and probably a great deal of trimming. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think the "Notes" section is for detailed discussion about individuals. It should be something very brief and related to a person's term as president. - Location (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. The article history shows it started off as a list containing sparse but straightforward biographic detail. Then somewhere along the line, a rotating IP began WP:COATRACKing, adding it's-all-connected-to-the-CIA-conspiracy POV like this, which I doubt is contained in the mainstream journal source being cited. All the material added by the rotating IP needs to be cleaned out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the most recent stuff. I think we still need to go through the article and remove any other problematic additions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the rest as blatant coatracking to promote fringe theories. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Eunice Murray
Article gives heavy weight to a lone pro-conspiracy book as well as having a large number of unsourced pro-conspiracy statements. Edward321 (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. There are big issues with the reliability of Slatzer and Wolfe, as well as Summers and Badman. The blog is a big fringe cherry on top. Might need to take a closer look at Death of Marilyn Monroe, too. - Location (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Death of Marilyn Monroe also has serious issues. Edward321 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If reliable secondary source coverage is considered, I'm not even sure that a stand-alone article is warranted. A better home for this might be Death of Marilyn Monroe conspiracy theories. - Location (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Location. A minor player in WP:ONEEVENT doesn't warrant a stand-alone bio, especially not one sourced primarily to fringe opinion or conspiracy literature. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * has opened this for further discussion in Articles for deletion/Eunice Murray. - Location (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Jose Sanjenis Perdomo and Death of John Lennon
Speaking of "unsolved" deaths, Death of John Lennon states:
 * The Dakota's doorman, ex-CIA Agent Jose Sanjenis Perdomo, and a nearby cab driver saw Chapman standing in the shadows by the archway.

In Jose Sanjenis Perdomo, I've reverted my own edits and added tags for the time being. The two sources citing material related to John Lennon do not appear to mention this person. One of them states that Jay Hastings was the doorman. (The remaining source — written by Hinckle and Turner who have a history linked to a few sensational allegations — appears to further fringe theories.) A search does reveal reliable sources stating that Jose Perdomo was the name of the doorman, however, none of them state that he was a Cuban secret police or CIA agent. I'm not sure that this person is even notable, but he is/was probably not the doorman at the Dakota. (There is a relevant edit here.) Thoughts? - Location (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Jose Sanjenis Perdomo. - Location (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Dark Flow
An article obviously written by either authors of the 2008 paper or enthusiastic supporters of that paper. Thing is, since Planck came out there isn't much of a leg to stand on for that point. The criticism section (ugh.) documents points that are not well-integrated into the article. The paper is moderately well-cited and appeared in a respectable journal, but this whole thing has the flavor of WMAP anomaly papers that were all the rage last decade (and made fun of a bit by the WMAP team when they pointed out that Stephen Hawking's initials could be found in the CMB). In any case, what to do with this article? It doesn't really deserve merging into any other articles I could find, but it also doesn't seem to be particularly article-worthy.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Finding other reliable sources and integrating their viewpoints into the article would be my call here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Time slip
WP:OR and synthesis used to create the impression that time slips are real but disputed phenomena, with "cases" and "characteristics" given as evidence. I doubt that "time slip" has any notability in reliable sources outside of mention in a few fictional works. Suggest a REDIRECT to Time travel. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reliable sources discussing this outside the context of time travel. I have boldly taken care of the redirect, but I have not cleaned-up the double redirects. - Location (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Time slip. - Location (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Related to this is Moberly–Jourdain incident. Incident or alleged incident? - Location (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Carole Tyler
Nancy Carole Tyler is another peripheral figure in a conspiracy theory. Her name is associated with a notable payoff scandal involving her boss, Bobby Baker, that could have ended LBJ's political career. The JFK assassination ended the investigation, then Tyler "mysteriously" died in a plane crash shortly thereafter. I guess the conspiracy theory is that she leaked news that JFK was going to replace LBJ on the 1964 ticket: JFK tells George Smathers, Smathers tells his secretary Mary Jo Kopechne, Kopeche tells Tyler (because they are roommates in a house owned by Baker), Tyler tells Baker, Baker tells LBJ. Of course LBJ doesn't want that. Tyler came unhinged (i.e. threaten to talk) when Baker didn't leave his wife her, and was killed. There was nothing mysterious about Mary Jo's later death... she was threatening to talk and the powers that be needed the loose ends tied up. I LOVE this stuff!

Question: Keep, redirect to Bobby Baker, or delete? (A previous discussion said "keep": Articles for deletion/Nancy Carole Tyler.) - Location (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing signs of notability for Tyler. Bobby Baker should probably be taken a look at - there's some pro-conspiracy stuff that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is one of those bios that exists only because the individual is notable among fringe conspiracy theorists, but the article itself is written as if her notability derives from a minor role as Bobby Baker's secretary. It really should be merged to Bobby Baker. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Waldorf education
This had dropped off my watchlist but looking at it just now for the first time in a while it seems there is a growing NPOV issue since the fringe components of the education system are now hardly mentioned or contextualized. There is also some puffy writing in my view. I have commented at Talk:Waldorf education – more eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The issues with this article, as always, are more reliable sourcing and keeping the synthesis down (which manages the NPOV). Fringe theories are a distant and much smaller problem.  The largest NPOV problem in my view is that what people want for balance (good negative reviews from good sources) just doesn't exist.  Not that it couldn't, but all the negative stuff is found on blog rants, not educational journals.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is simply wrong: as I say on talk even the critical material in good sources used has been missed out. In addition, stuff from newspapers and journal articles have been stripped out of the article that criticize the pseudoscientific aspect of the Steiner-based science curriculum and the risks of the schools' antivax stance. In my view there is a systemtic WP:ADVOCACY problem with this article's editing and the resulting text is a rare case where the "advert" tag is currently justified. It reads like a brochure and I have to question how anybody could think it doesn't! Alexbrn (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are exactly right, and this has always been the case (cf. the past Arbitration). The advert tag is richly deserved. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be worng of me to reference Wikignomnes at this point? Guy (Help!) 11:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well ... while there are editors with a known COI at work on this article, and it seems fairly obvious there are also editors with an undisclosed COI at work too, exposing this probably isn't a fruitful line to pursue as Wikipedia's mechanisms aren't set up to work that way. Since discretionary sanctions apply, the only way I can think of resolving the long term problem is to have an intolerance of non-neutral editing and to be quick to call for arbitration enforcement for any editor who makes non-neutral edits. Note there have also been some problematic anti-Steiner crusaders at work from time-to-time too. Alexbrn (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC
Note there is now An RfC on this issue. Alexbrn (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Moberly-Jourdain incident

 * An Adventure, is historically notable book primarily known as an example of early 20th century mysticism. However, the present article presents the topic in the context of a "paranormal incident/unsolved mystery" with a heavy Fortean spin (thanks, WikiProject Paranormal). Suggest WP:BLOWITUP and rework it as a book article discussing An Adventure in its proper literary context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Blow it up might require an Afd. How about a move to An Adventure or An Adventure (book)? Discussion might need to be raised on talk page. Location (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Section opened on Talk page Talk:Moberly%E2%80%93Jourdain_incident. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Currently an edit war to define a supernatural claim as an actual "incident". - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for a good article reassessment here: Good article reassessment/Moberly–Jourdain incident/1. jps (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Separate bios?
These two individuals have only WP:ONEEVENT (above) they are notable for. There isn't any material on them that's not already covered by the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why they can't be redirected. jps (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Chromosome 2 (human)
Chromosome 2 (human) is a current creationist target, took a week to remove the last edit entirely and the edit before that was also reverting creationist opinion. I have opned a talk page thread but the page needs eyes as an article like this shouldnt be a vehicle for creationist propaganda even for a week, IMO. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. I'm not that active anymore, so feel free to ping me if there's a recurrent problem. MastCell Talk 15:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Israeli Secret Intelligence Service
I'm starting to second-guess my understanding of what constitutes an appropriate redirect. There is a fringe theory that ISIS actually mans "Israeli Secret Intelligence Service" (or using that acronym specifically to draw a connection between The Islamic State and Mossad). Someone created a redirect, pointing Israeli Secret Intelligence Service to the ISIS article. As the target article doesn't mention that name and as it's a not a common name for Mossad (the vast majority of sources that use it do so to make a connection based on its initialism), I nominated it for deletion (Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_4). Hopefully posting here doesn't constitute canvassing, but I'm wondering what standard operating procedure is in this sort of situation. There are a couple sources that suggest the acronym has been used to refer to Mossad in the past, but they're few and generally quite poor. Someone looking for this name is going to be looking for the Islamic State connection rather than Mossad, and keeping the redirect with either target (neither of which, again, mention it) seems to legitimate the connection. ...I hope I'm not jumping into something I'm going to regret jumping into here -- these are not topic areas I often edit (I just happened across this redirect earlier today and thought it strange). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

List of unsolved deaths
I am hoping someone can take a closer look at List of unsolved deaths as there appear to be some deaths that are "solved" in the eyes of officials but disputed by those who hold fringe views. The article is danger of becoming List of disputed deaths. For example, Army officer Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald was convicted for the 1970 murders of his wife and daughters, but some authors say he didn't do it. As another, a coroner ruled that the death of William Colby, the former director of the CIA, was accidental, but others state it was foul play or suicide. My removal of these names from the lists was reverted as "disputed".(diff) Others are Dorothy Kilgallen, Bruce Lee, and Jim Morrison. I guess the assassination of JFK is "unsolved" because it, too, is disputed. - Location (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Some parts of that list look like a forevision of paradise for hard core conspiracy theorists. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to raise the issue on the talk page that the definition of "unsolved" needs to be clarified. As is, any death challenged by anyone is now considered "unsolved". - Location (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem that page has (and I say this as the contributor involved in the revert war with Location) is that it really should be split into separate lists: one for the deaths that are clearly murders at the top, another for the unsolved serial killings (and I would also suggest for unsolved mass murders like the terrorist attacks scattered through there, and maybe things like the Villisca axe murders as well) and finally the unsolved deaths, which should be renamed "unsolved or disputed" and perhaps partitioned. A long time ago, I think, someone started a list of unsolved murders, but I guess someone else felt it was too small and merged it into the larger list, which is now carrying a lot more than its name implies. No, I wouldn't consider the Kennedy assassination "disputed", since it was, after all, an assassination—there's no dispute about how he died: homicidal gunshot wounds. As for the rest of this dispute I'll take it up on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that the article needs to be split, but rather that credence is given to fringe views as to what deaths are "unsolved" and then calling those deaths "disputed". On this, your view appears to be entirely subjective. For example, the Kennedy assassination is clearly disputed and unsolved in the minds of conspiracy theorists who, as a group, have asserted that over 80 people took shots at Kennedy. The official record is clear on how Kennedy died and who caused him to die. The same is true in the examples above. We don't say that deaths of Colby or Kilgallen are unsolved because some people say or believe otherwise, or that the MacDonald murders are unsolved because the claims of his innocence are less wacky. - Location (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FRINGE, deaths that are subject to fringe speculation or conclusions that are at odds with the orthodox view of such matters should not be endorsed by Wikipedia as officially "unsolved". They should either be removed from the list or put into a section clearly identified as "Fringe theories". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree with LuckyLouie... if we are to include fringe claims at all, they must be clearly identified as being such.  Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a guy works down the chip shop thinks he's Elvis! -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We have an IP that is persistently attempting to add material promoting fringe conspiracy theories regarding the death of Dorothy Kilgallen. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Borley Rectory
Yes, I know England loves its ghost stories, but I think Wikipedia's voice cannot be used to declare that "paranormal events apparently occurred", refer to claims as "mysteries", and casually state 'facts' like, "on one occasion, Adelaide was attacked by something horrible". My light copyedits for NPOV have been reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is clearly not acceptable as it stands. I have been engaged in an edit war over the assertions of factual truth with an editor who is obviously clueless about how such things must be treated in articles. Appropriate action by an administrator is going to be required. Afterwriting (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Relatively little (and nothing of the contentious recent edits) seems to have changed since the article was passed as a GA in August 2013.[]Liverpres (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've opened discussion on the talk page. Note that Liverpress has been blocked as a sock. - Location (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Things are not improving. I've asked for a good article reassessment: Good article reassessment/Borley Rectory/1. Sad. jps (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is puzzling. After questioning an apparent reliance on fringe sources I was chased off for asking "counterproductive questions", followed by accusations of canvassing and tag teaming. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is perhaps even more puzzling is your automatic assumption that each and every thing contained in a source would qualify as "fringe," which few rational people would, your doing, so far as I can tell, nothing but impugning the efforts of others to find sources, when to date so far as I can tell you have done nothing similar yourself, and, finally, your coming back here to apparently do nothing but whine about it. Poor baby. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop it, John. LuckyLouie is usually very good at finding sources for us, and I have no doubt he did a good job of researching the topic. That we're leaning so heavily on primary source documents from SPR should give pause for thought at the very least. Yes, it's interesting that they were somewhat skeptical in their investigation (in comparison to the timeslip weirdness we've been discussing elsewhere). No, this doesn't make me less concerned with the way that the credulous phrasing of the SPR's reports has been adopted and used in Wikipedia's voice. That's the complaint. Find more sources, fantastic! But please, let's find some reliable ones. jps (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Gemmotherapy
Didn't know this was a thing until today. Any thoughts on what to do with it?

jps (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * it is apparently a branch of homeopathy, and so we treat it as such.
 * If that's the case, then it seems to me a bit odd that we have so many pictures of botanicals as it is highly likely the preparations don't contain any trace of them. jps (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Rodet, discussed above, links to gemmotherapy. This website about gemmology gives a good idea of what it's about. It is macerated plant matter mixed with glycerin. It's not homeopathically diluted, as far as I can see, but it's not evidence-based and the doses of any useful compounds would be negligible. My inclination is to merge into Herbalism, without images and without the literature section.

A note: That site calls Hahnemann's dilution method "isotherapy" instead of the more usual "homeopathy." Roches (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Rodet


Is this quack notable or not? The article is shockingly bad, and the sources seem to be primary or tangential. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the better part of a decade, Wikipedia has been helpfully telling the world that he was an alumnus of the New York Academy of Sciences. In fact, he is listed in some external websites as the only alumni of that institution which has never had any degree-granting authority, mind you. So I did this. I have a sneaking suspicion that much of what is written on this page may be completely incorrect. jps (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The article in French is tagged with and I put that tag on the English article. The French article is better than the English one, I think; it presents the biography in prose rather than as a timeline. Translating the whole French article might be pointless if there is no basis for an article. However, one bit of the French article was definitely worth translating: in 2004, a professional organization in Quebec found that Rodet was practicing agronomy/agricultural engineering without a license. The judgment contains the line (my translation): "In 1990, we emphasize, the OAQ refused to recognize the equivalency of [Rodet's] foreign diplomas." Accordingly, I removed Rodet from the categories of Canadian and French academics. Roches (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I made a slight correction to the translation. The original said that he acknowledged guilt, an important nuance. This raises a bigger question: where did he get his "doctorate of agronomic sciences" degree? It would be unusual for Canada not to acknowledge a degree from a legitimate French institution.  (I'm an agronomist, and French agronomic expertise is well regarded, e.g. INRA.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Addendum: I found a secondhand account where Rodet says his degree is from the UK, but still no mention of the institution. The institution should be noted in his article, if someone can dig it up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I would think a French degree would be recognized, too. "Doctor of Agronomic Sciences" is listed as a possible degree in Argentina at Doctor of Science, but doctorates in science are rare in the UK. And I'd expect someone to mention their undergraduate institution as well, if they were trying to say they had the necessary qualifications. I would not expect a dictionary definition. It is also very unusual for someone to have three doctorates in different things. Searching for Rodet at the New York Academy of Sciences gives no results. That is about all I can do to look into it. Roches (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is more than likely that any degrees that exist are not from accredited institutions. The institutions may not even be around any more. Someone at some point thought that NYAS sounded plausible. Maybe there was a diploma mill at one time that had a similar name? jps (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a claim of multiple doctorates sets off all kinds of alarm bells [("Pour ce qui me concerne, un Doctorate of Agronomic Sciences (UK - 1977), Doctorat de Agricultura Biologica (Argentina - 1988), Élection à l'Académie des Sciences de New-York (USA - 1980), Doctorate of Veterinary Homeopathic Medicina (UK - 1989) pour la présentation de mes travaux en agriculture et élevage biologique, ont étayé mon parcours scientifique et ma formation et semblent sans valeur académique au Québec.")] The reader would naturally ask what institutions granted these degrees. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, the claim is that he was "elected" to the New York Academy of Sciences. I don't think that's possible, actually. One can become a member by paying the $117 membership fee, but you don't even need a sponsor! jps (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Incoming
Mike "Health Danger" Adams posted a spittle-flecked rant against Wikipedia on his webshite: www.naturalnews.com/051060_wikipedia_Jimmy_Wales_extortion_racket.html. I anticipate an influx of flying monkeys. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's amazingly over the top. I wonder if everything is okay over there at naturalnews. jps (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, he's just emotionally overwrought after discovering that the Tianjin explosion was the first shot in a covert American war on China started by Obama at the behest of the Federal Reserve (yeah, the Jewish Communist Fed). And no, I shit you not. The derp is strong in this one. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention the black helicopters (yes, really - there's even a pic). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While our page on NaturalNews mentions his proclivities, it doesn't seem to do justice to the current state of the website which seems to be less about "natural" and "news" and more about how the entire world is out to get you. This is not what I remembered the site being like four or five years ago when it seemed more like a shill for big suppla (eat your glucosamine, coral calcium, and acai berry extract and cure all your diseases!). jps (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you could 'fix' this discrepancy if you can find a RS lambasting his site. Tit for tat is all the rage these days.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think the Tianjin explosion was the result of a hit from a new US space weapon as the opening salvo of a war in retaliation for the exchange rate? I doubt if you do, and I rather suspect that, like jps and me, you think that idea is completely irrational. And that is the point: NaturalNews used to be about Adams shilling for "big herba", but these days he's morphed it into a completely deranged extreme libertarian conspiracy hub which also, incidentally, shills for "big herbaI'd coin the term "feedback fruit loop" but actually it's not funny, it's tragic and also quite dangerous. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot really find much in the way of analysis of this particular website. It seems like it's just spiraling into the paranoid mind of its creator. At some point, I imagine, we'll need to change the verb tenses in the article, but WP:CRYSTAL works for now. jps (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Request for GMO articles
Arbitration/Requests/Case

Page-watchers here may find cause to add their comments on what they think might be appropriate for this hot-button area.

jps (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Starchild skull
There's currently yet again a person edit warring to put in dubious information and editorial bias from the Starchild Project website. Pretty obviously a single purpose account. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

James Files
James Files says he was one of Kennedy's assassins. An IP has been editing the article to replace reliable sources with unreliable sources, including 1) the addition of content that reiterates Files' claim to be a trained assassin as fact and 2) the removal of content in which the FBI stated his claims were not credible. - Location (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

An RfC involving the presentation of poor scholarship
People on this notice board may interested in this RfC related how to cover poor scholarship. Talk:IQ_and_Global_Inequality -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Weird ideas become the BLP's main focus
I was alerted to this WP:FRINGEBLP issue today. Is it really the case that this politician's peculiar ideas are what we need to spend most of the article discussing?

jps (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Homo Naledi critisism and science denialism[2][3][4]" The section name has sources. It should be moved. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It does rather look like WP:UNDUE given the length of the article. However, the comments are well sourced and the politician stuck to his guns, so the claims deserve a mention. QuackGuru's remark "It should be moved." begs the question: "where to?" Kleuske (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It might help if someone could expand the article. If this is the only thing that this politician is notable for then we might consider deleting the article. If the politician is notable for more, then spending most of the article on this incident makes the article read like some sort of hit piece. jps (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As an MP, he's notable under WP:POLITICIAN (and he would be for his position within the ANC or premiership alone as well). Kolbasz (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Church incited martyrdom
User:BlackCab has used a WP:SYNTH from a variety of critical ex-Jehovah's Witnesses sources and secular sources to make a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that "The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses incited opposition to pursue a course of martyrdom under Rutherford's leadership during the 1930s, in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society, and to convince members that persecution from the outside world was evidence of the truth of their struggle to serve God". He has reverted my recent edit accusing me of an SPA (which has been notified to admin page) and belittling my concerns in the talk page. There is no evidence given in the sources how the leadership instructed JWs to pursue martyrdom. Its a blatant Synthesis. He combines source from three ex-JWs and two secular sources not peer reviewed to make a single false claim in the main article of JWs. I want to notify this here. Roller958 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The single sentence to which he objects is properly sourced and I have provided quotes on the talk page. It is not synth and this is no fringe theory. It is a statement of belief by a range of respected authors (and William Schnell, a polemicist whose work is widely cited by other authors). Roller958 neglects to state that he is a JW who has claimed that this statement is untrue because Jehovah's Witnesses don't know about it. If he is relying on the Watch Tower Society as his sole source of information in life, he is in deep trouble.  BlackCab  ( TALK ) 05:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Black Cab is right, you are wrong. The content is well sourced, you are a single purpose account. That's about all there is to say here other than that if you keep it up you'll likely be topic banned. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This belongs on the reliable sources noticeboard as there is no relevant fringe theory as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to add that a person's opinion on a subjective matter cannot be subject to peer review. Roches (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad - discovered America in 889?
Anyone want to rewrite this which presents a person in a story as real? was removed as a source for a critical comment, but the only fact is that Al-Masudi presents this as a story known by every Spaniard and that Al-Masudi casts doubt upon the possibility of crossing the Atlantic before mentioning this story. Doug Weller (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See for a source of one of the quotes, which doesn't seem accurately reported. Doug Weller (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe I'm missing something here. What exactly is the point of contention? From what I can see here he sailed "east" from Delhi to somewhere, maybe Oceania, Hawaii, the island from Lost, some damn place, anyway. Or is it, maybe, a question regarding notahility of the article itself, which, honestly, I'm not really sure is necessarily established? John Carter (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither notability nor is the question of whether this person ever lived is established, but the article is written as though there is no doubt that he existed. Doug Weller (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen on google some books discussing this subject, but only in the context of either the book which mentions it or the claim to having discovered America or something. The other relevant article on this topic seems to be Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, but this individual doesn't seem to be mentioned in the "Claims of Arab contact" sect8ion, assuming Aswad was an Arab of course. Maybe add a sentence or two to that article regarding this claim and then nominate it for deletion as non-notable? John Carter (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And, I think, this issue has been resolved thanks to the welcome and appreciated efforts of User:WegianWarrior here. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Fringe edits on Lamarckism
A user called Thundergodz has just deleted a load of references from the Lamarckism article, claiming they are 'unreliable'. The sources include Jerry Coyne and David Gorski. Am I missing something here? Why have these been deleted? I am going to re-add these sources. If it is true and these are unreliable then feel free to revert me. A little angry (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Jerry Coyne and David Gorski seem like educated individuals and reliable. But what were the publications? Were they secondary sources? Peer reviewed? Can you show us DIFF Links of what was removed? A little more specificity would lend some clarity to providing insight here. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari
I think this talk page could use some more eyes. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: A more specific description and background of the issues and possible conflicts at hand, including possible sources in dispute and DIFF Links, might help respondents on this board to understand and assess the situation more thoroughly. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Anthroposophic pharmacy
Not sure this is needed in addition to Anthroposophic medicine, but from the current article you'd hardly know that the underlying concepts were as absurd as they are, as reported in non-fringe RS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is one of those cases where no WP:MEDRS sources have covered the subject at all (because it's, well, patently ridiculous); a PubMed search for "anthroposophic pharmacy" gives just a single hit, and it's irrelevant (a literature review where anthroposophic drugs were excluded). A merge to anthroposophic medicine might be best, especially since it's the only article linking to it. Kolbasz (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to tell me that sticking a cow horn in the ground does not induce magical properties? Shame your your narrow-minded reductionist so-called "science". Guy (Help!) 14:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Maybe an WP:AFD is best to determine if a Merge is appropriate, or if problematic WP:SYNTH is involved or violation of WP:RS. IF reliable sources are in question, one can bring those to WP:RSN. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Gallbladder (Chinese medicine)
While looking for GA articles related about animal products used in alt med (to assist in a rewrite of Velvet antler), I found this stub article. "...This also leads to controversy about the validity of TCM, which comes from the difficulty of translating and lack of knowledge about TCM concepts and Chinese culture. So, to avoid conflict and to keep an open mind, one must realize that these notions evolved in a different culture and are a different way of viewing the human body."

I think a complete rewrite is in order. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Zero sources cited whatsover. Not to mention lack of secondary sources. Suggest WP:AFD. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Larry Dossey
This article was brought to my attention by a fantastic new editor. I see the issue: the WP:FRINGEBLP exists in a space where much of the sourcing is laudatory of his fringe claims. If people could help clean it up a bit (having a "reception" section in a BLP is a bit weird, for starters, but I'm not sure what more can be done).

jps (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this. I think Dossey is important because he is a well known pseudoscience proponent like Rupert Sheldrake. There is a big piece by Victor Stenger and a physician Jeffrey Bishop that heavily criticizes Dossey for abusing quantum physics, misrepresenting medical studies etc

Retroactive Prayer: Lots Of History, Not Much Mystery, And No Science, Jeffrey P. Bishop and Victor J. Stenger. British Medical Journal. Vol. 329, No. 7480 (Dec. 18 - 25, 2004), pp. 1444-1446. There are also three negative reviews for his books in the Skeptical Inquirer. So far I only added one. I can help on this article but there will be a lot of criticism in the article about Dossey's pseudoscientific ideas. The user who created the article may object to me doing this (so far he seems to want the article 'balanced' with positive things about Dossey from mainly newspapers), so I will hold for now. See what other users think. I don't want to write an entirely negative bio for this guy but practically all the scientific sources written by experts dismiss him as a quack. I found some positive things about his books in religious journals but these don't seem that reliable to me. A little angry (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think what's missing is a section describing what specific fringe concepts Dossey is advocating. A "reception" section can then be useful to show the response to these fringe concepts from science-based medicine using WP:FRIND sources such as the journal above. The newspaper stuff (which I see includes opinions from Oprah) can be contained in a Popular culture section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The British Medical Journal is a good source, but you have to be careful with the Skeptical Inquirer as it's not an academic journal. 95.89.18.195 (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I read a book by the guy once. It was inspirational but a bit full of fluff. I would recommend heavily relying upon secondary sources independent of the article's subject, and let that guide the content distribution. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Earth system science
There may be some unduly weighted borderline material in this article which seems to spend quite a bit of time discussing the Gaia hypothesis which, depending on how deeply you dig, may or may not be a bit fringe-y itself (certainly some of Lynn Margulis's and James Lovelock's ideas after a time were way out on a limb).

Anyway, some experienced editors would be welcome at that page to see what, if anything, they can do to improve it.

jps (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Earth system science" is a real thing, and the first three sentences of the article make a fair description. But it goes downhill pretty fast from there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit more more specificity as to the problem here would be helpful in assessing the situation. Specifically, problematic DIFF Links, questionable sources that could be removed, etc, please? Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Faith Healing
Join the discussion at Talk:Faith_healing Raymond3023 (talk)
 * Undated section here, but I agree with the comment there by . Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC on "Conspiracy Theorist"
A RfC here asks whether Frank Gaffney can be identified as a "conspiracy theorist" in his BLP or not. LavaBaron (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Center for Security Policy (sanitizing of article about Islamophobic hate group)
I don't know if this falls within the purview of FT or not so am throwing this out there to get feedback and advise on resolution. The Center for Security Policy is a group self-identifying as a "think tank" that has been widely derided for propagating "conspiracy theories." Recently an IP editor has started aggressively rewriting the article to recraft those descriptions as follows: "The Center's hard line views—especially on radical Islam—have caused it and the Center's founder and President, Frank Gaffney, Jr., to be reviled by the left which has accused the Center of Islamophobia and propagating conspiracy theories." The IP editor has also liberally peppered the article with inline off-Wiki links to the CSP website, expunged traces of the withering criticism the CSP has come under, and inserted weasel words like "free speech advocate" as the descriptor for Lars Hedegaard (whom the New York Times describes as an "anti-Islam polemicist" ). LavaBaron (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting case. I think here we have someone who is alleging that there is a Muslim conspiracy, and would qualify as a conspiracy theory in the strict sense, but American political discourse over the last 20 years has descended into such bathos that it is hard to figure out what is supposed to be a strict claim of fact and what is a rhetorical device. Do we want to say that anti-corporatists are also conspiracy theorists? Hard to say. What seems clear to me is that the conspiracy theory judgment is definitely one that is being leveled in a political context and as such there are grains of salt that need to be given. It would be nice if a sufficiently non-partisan group provided the evidence that CfSP is firmly gripped by conspiracy theorist ideation; right now the sourcing in the article is C to B grade at best for that kind of contention. To be clear, I think the IP editor's recrafting is fine except for the weird parenthetical about "radical Islam". From the sources I'm reading about this group they seem to take a hard line view on all of Islam. As for the other points you make, "free speech advocate" is not a particularly neutral descriptor of Lars Hedegaard, but I might suggest taking up some of this with WP:NPOVN which may be better equipped to handle political questions. As far as fringe theories go, I think you'll need a bit stronger source to identify that they are truly out in the tinfoil hat-land, though, regrettably, it is often hard to tell the difference on the surface. Independent, third-party sources are what you need, and better ones than are currently being proffered in the article, if possible. jps (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Writing "an IP editor has started aggressively rewriting the article" and "The IP editor has also liberally peppered the article..." are erroneous statements and do not reflect the truth (i.e. the diffs). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So to clarify -
 * You think peppering off-Wiki links to the CSP's website in the body text is "fine."
 * You think using the phrase "Global Jihad Movement" in a Wikipedia article (not in quotes to indicate it is CSP craziness but out-of-quotes to imply it is a real thing known to academia) is "fine."
 * You think purging criticism the CSP received from the Huffington Post, SPLC, six members of the U.S. Congress, et al., for accusing Huma Abedin of being a "Muslim" saboteur/spy is "fine."
 * You think purging criticism the CSP received from the The Nation, Georgetown University, etc. for the CSP's position that the U.S. government has redesigned some of its logos to show that Barack Obama is secretly signalling he has subjugated America to Shariah Law is "fine."
 * You think weasel-phrases like "have caused it to be reviled by the left" are encyclopedic, scholarly, and "fine."
 * Just want to clarify that when you said "I think the IP editor's recrafting is fine" that's what you meant you were signing-on to. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you be any more tiresome? It's clear that jps was referring to the one sentence you said the IP recrafted. This isn't relevant to FTN anyway, so take it to NPOVN or put up an Rfc on the article's talk page if need be. - Location (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Location, above, is right. I was commenting on only two specific points: the single sentence and the argument that Hedegaard is a "free speech advocate". I did not comment on anything else. In any case, did you really want any feedback or not? We're equipped to handle one thing here: how Wikipedia should handle fringe theories. The only fringe theories that I see that are relevant here are those associated with certain Islamophobic conspiracy theories. The rest of your complaint is best left for a different venue. jps (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The actual "recrafting" by an IP (this one) did not make edits to the article to include the aforementioned (as outlined on the SPI of Zeke1999). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No indictment was intended, jps. From the tone of your comment it sounded to me like you had looked at the article and diffs. That's why I was asking for clarification (see: Just want to clarify that when you said... etc.) as opposed to making an accusation. LavaBaron (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked briefly at the article, but not the history, and tried to identify the thing that we are supposed to help with here. I assumed that what you were concerned about was the sentence and phrase you quoted. The rest of your concern was too vague for me to identify and was largely unrelated to fringe theories as far as I could tell. Then your follow-up came across to me as combative with all that "fine." But it could all just be a misinterpretation. I'm not sure why you think "have caused it to be reviled by the left" is a problematic phrase. Are you saying that it is not reviled by the left? Or are you saying that it is reviled by more than just the left? jps (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither, I'm saying it's OR and POVy. The sources cited to support the phrase "have caused it [CSP] to be reviled by the left" are simply several RS sources (Georgetown University, The Nation, etc.) stating CSP engages in conspiracy theorizing, they don't say "we are the left and we revile CSP" or anything like that. The IP editor is (a) using OR to assume Georgetown University and The Nation constitute "the left," or "leftists" and (b) using OR to reframe their conclusion that CSP is a conspiracy theorist as indication of their "revulsion" of it. I'm a little surprised I need to explain why editor's critiquing sources in an article, instead of synthesizing their content, is problematic.
 * I posted it here, rather than the NPOVN, because it involves a group that propagates conspiracy theories (as stated by the sources before the IP editor rewrote the entire article). LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, misrepresenting sources is no good, but it seems to me that the sentence itself probably could be sourced. jps (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The "IP editor is (a)..." neither doing nor has done any such thing, the IP editor did  not  rewrite the article. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's customary on WP to write articles based on sources we think probably exist somewhere, but just can't find. LavaBaron (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the article and recent editing history, I think it's a tough calll on whether this is WP:PROFRINGE. It might be. But I would definitely call it aggressive POV editing. In either case it's a no no. That said we need to tread carefully. There are a lot of editors, myself included, who have seen what we believe to be left leaning bias intruding into articles on controversial subjects. And there are a lot of editors who interpret anything that doesn't tow the PC line as fringe. That said, I do think this is a pretty glaring case of POV pushing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the POV-pusher is Zeke1999 as I find something about LavaBaron's comments quite disingenuous. The statement in the article that reads "...criticized by the left..." is cited to Georgetown's Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding, Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, and The Nation, yet LavaBaron says 1) that these are "simply reliable sources" stating something as fact, and 2) that characterizing these organizations as "the left" is original research. Now the ACMCU may not be "left", but there exists an apparent bias that requires in-text attribution for their views. The later three are clearly described in reliable sources — and even by themselves — as either left, liberal, or progressive. Again, use in-text attribution and this isn't an issue. - Location (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful for this discussion. I don't deny that Gaffney and his think tank are controversial.  I don't oppose including criticism of them.  My problem with Lavabaron's changes is that they were exclusively drawn from liberal sources, some of which did not even verify his statements. The so-called Georgetown source noted above is a particularly biased source.  He or she also repeatedly removed new material that was sourced and corrections.  I also think some of the discussion above on what constitutes a conspiracy theorist is important.  If Gaffney is a bona fide conspiracy theorist, why is he so close to congressional Republicans?  Why does he make so many media appearances where this is not mentioned? Contrast this with notorious conspiracy theorists like neo-Nazis ands Holocaust deniers.  Is Gaffney really in this category or is he a polemicist?  I should add that Hillary Clinton's campaign allegedly came up with the Obama-birther conspiracy (which, by the way, I agree is silly).  Clinton has also referred to the "great right wing conspiracy."  Is she a conspiracy theorist too?  Of course not.
 * I think the real POV issue here concerns Lavabaron who clearly has a strong dislike for Gaffney and CSP. I want to note that before Lavabaron raised fringe, POV and COI complaints, he or she lodged a groundless sock puppet complaint that a Wikipedia administrator rejected.   I don't know enough about Wikipedia to defend my edits against this person who appears to be pursuing his or her own fringe agenda.Zeke1999 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of the statements made by LavaBaron are incorrect (e.g. concerning "the IP editor", i.e. false claims), and may also be disingenous as well. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with the suggestion that the Clinton campaign started the birther movement, it's now clear to me from this edit that LavaBaron isn't interested in working with others and is merely looking for validation of his/her own POV. I suggest this be closed and moved to NPOVN. - Location (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge you are upset by the use of "liberal sources" [sic] like The Nation, Reason Magazine (?!), and Georgetown University in the article about your group, the Center for Security Policy. I also acknowledge that, as of yesterday, more than 80% of your 32 lifetime edits over 7 years on WP were to the CSP article, or those of two bios of your CSP staff members, which has included removal of critical material sourced to the Washington Post  (apparently also a "liberal" source that can't be trusted?). I also acknowledge that the majority of your edits were done on these lightly trafficked articles within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits.  I also acknowledge, aside from the highly questionable nature of your edits to obfuscate criticism, you have also crossed several WP:PROMOTIONAL bright lines, such as inserting in-text links to your CSP website in violation of WP:EXT.  I also acknowledge you seem to have a free hand to continue your disruption and I'm tired of mounting a one-man defense so resign. If anyone else wants to take this up, be my guest, otherwise laissez les bons temps rouler. LavaBaron (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with liberal sources. I just object to people posting biased hit pieces. You claimed my edits were to sanitize, used an SPA, accused me of using a sock puppet and accused me of COI after I made changes to two items that did not remove your critical but poorly sourced material. You did reverted all edits to two articles made by numerous editors. Wow! There must be something Wikipedia can do about your abusive and biased editing.Zeke1999 (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron stating "...an IP editor making substantially identical edits" is not correct. While such tools (on wmflabs.org) designed to determine editor interaction can be useful, those do not necessarily show the actual truth and most certainly do not show "making substantially identical edits" (nor do the diffs, except if perhaps selecting only an undo of RBK - to try to make a point(?), which could well be disingenous or whatever else explains). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem you're having on WP is you believe anything that is critical of your organization is a "liberal source" that is "hit piece." You have, astonishingly, even criticized the respected libertarian pub Reason Magazine of being a "liberal source." You'll find that this type of paranoia doesn't usually go over all that well and you may feel better at home on Conservapedia. The reason I accused you of COI was because, specifically: as of yesterday, more than 80% of your 32 lifetime mainspace edits over 7 years on WP were to the CSP article, or those of two bios of your CSP staff members, which has included removal of critical material sourced to the Washington Post, the majority of your edits were done on these lightly trafficked articles within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits,  you have also crossed several WP:PROMOTIONAL bright lines, such as inserting in-text links to your CSP website in violation of WP:EXT. . On WP this is known as the WP:DUCKTEST. Hope that clarifies. Please let me know if you have any other questions. LavaBaron (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, the mention of "...within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits" is erroneous. Also, the diff provided to illustrate "inserting in-text links" is merely where Zeke1999 undid the undo that LavaBaron had done on my undo of his mass RBK of the article, which removed material added by several editors - the IP most certainly not related to Zeke1999, nor any other editors). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with these comments by, above: DIFF 1, and DIFF 2. Reason Magazine is certainly a good source, but it can hardly be characterized as a "liberal source". And anyone that does try to characterize it as a "liberal source", is letting their POV show through quite tellingly. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Presumably, Cirt, the agreement (with above diffs) does not include the "IP" this and "IP" that claims. (While having nothing to do with my edits) I agree Reason Magazine is a good source and might well be showing POV if categorizing as a "liberal source" - except, from what I had read on the "discussions" (or whatever it's called), I do not recall reading where anyone stated such a thing about that particular reference either. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * is also correct that The Washington Post DIFF, is a reliable source. And that Reason Magazine is most certainly not a "liberal source". These problematic issues raised above are indeed WP:REDFLAGs. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I don't see from those diffs that Zeke1999 and/or 99.170.117.163 ever claimed that The Washington Post or Reason were unreliable or that Reason was a "liberal source". As far as The Nation, it self-describes itself in the following statement: "For 150 years, The Nation has uniquely chronicled the breadth of American political and cultural life and is often considered the “flagship” of the political Left." - Location (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I meant to link Reason Magazine, which is not thought of as liberal. I'd like to hear more from . Perhaps an WP:SPI investigation would help with this issue. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999. - Location (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like lots of commentary from the involved parties may have sidetracked that SPI. I wish the best of luck to and anyone else involved in investigating that SPI in seeing the forest for the trees. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) From what I saw on the Fleitz article (when glancing at diff you provided), it looks as if The Washington Post was retained as a source (x2) and the diff does not seem to show "removal of critical material sourced to" the reference at all (as LavaBaron had claimed), rather it shows re-arranging while retaining the "critical material" far as I can tell. When looking at the compared to the  (same two as in diff), it looks like nothing significant (if anything) was removed insofar as content (verbiage), and instead the article was reformatted, sections created, material from old version moved under appropriate headings, updated, etc. - an improvement (imo). Even if only comparing the diffs, it does not seem as if anything was "sanitized" nor any "removal of critical material sourced". Although, it can perhaps be (or is) confusing to look at diffs (link provided by LavaBaron and later by you, Cirt) on such a major edit and think something was removed when trying to follow all the changes made(?) (by that is meant what appears to be mainly reorganizing, rearranging). The old version had eight references, the edit by Zeke1999 has 39! (and, lo and behold, Washington Post references are still there) What was the issue again? 99.170.117.163 (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case of interest
People with an interest in how content related to scientific claims are presented may be interested in the newly opened arbitration case. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology
Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology

This AfD was closed "no consensus". I find the article to still be very problematic. We need either a cleanup or a new AfD, in my opinion.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I offer this redirect as an option for how to handle the situation. jps (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Aaaaand nonsense pushback. jps (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That's way above my pay grade. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 00:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment: Talk:Self-creation cosmology jps (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Perhaps a WP:DRV might be the next step, if one respectfully disagrees with the WP:AFD outcome. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally a "no consensus" outcome means that one continues editing as though the AfD never happened. In any case, I don't see anyone objecting to the RfC. I find the slavish devotion to arbitrary rules exhibited by some admin-types here at Wikipedia to be somewhat problematic, needless to say. More on my talkpage. jps (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)