Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 51

Rick Alan Ross - deprogrammer


Ross is a deprogrammer known for his part in the Jason Scott case.

1) Am I correct in assuming "deprogramming", "brainwashing", "cults", etc in the context of this BLP are all WP:FRINGE?

2) If so, are we currently presenting enough of the larger context and fringe nature of the worldview that Ross works within?

I brought up these questions at Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross, where we agreed that a WP:FTN discussion would help.

is arguing to change his article to present him as an expert in "cults", and to de-emphasize his "deprogramming" work as much as possible. The current talk page is almost entirely about various such proposals.

3) Are there similar articles where these issues have been given more attention that we could use as guides? --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just read over the discussion from April 22 through May 8th, and I have to say I agree with Rick. Descriptives about him in most sources refer to him primarily as a "cult expert" or some variation thereof. The fact that he initially gained recognition as a deprogrammer is worth mentioning, but that doesn't mean his other work doesn't deserve due weight. For instance, Will Smith would open with "Willard Carroll "Will" Smith, Jr. '(born September 25, 1968) is an American rapper." if we applied this standard to his article.
 * His participation at the talk page might be part of his marketing work (who could argue that editing one's own wikipedia article isn't marketing work?), but that fact doesn't necessarily make him wrong. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum I read somewhat further, and I have to say that his claim that the Jason Scott case is not his primary claim to notability is spurious. It is. All of the other media attention he has received has come as a direct result of his participation therein. Without it, he would almost certainly not have gotten enough media coverage to satisfy GNG. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you've addressed any of the FRINGE issues at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a WP:FRINGE subject, IMHO. However, it's a well documented one and it's not as fringe as (for example) the Flat earth society. Nor is it fringe in the same way. It's fringe because it's applied psychology based almost entirely upon the work of a small group of psychologists and a small subset of psychological theories that tends to operate outside of the mainstream of psychology. I don't believe there is a consensus among psychologists that the methods used by deprogrammers and the theories behind their work are accurate, but I don't believe there's widespread consensus that they're not, either. In other words, it's fringe, but not in the pejorative sense. That being said, I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. The article should fall under the discretionary sanctions imposed upon fringe subjects IMHO, as well as BLP standards. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Social influence, persuasion techniques culminating in undue influence, is not a fringe theory. There is much research on the subject and undue influence has been ruled upon in court proceedings. Calling it "fringe" is a POV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a POV. I said above that it relies "...almost entirely upon the work of a small group..." and that's what I meant. Almost all of modern psychology is based on well-proven and well-documented theories at its most basic level. The same is true of Loop quantum gravity in physics. However, just like LQG, this work is fringe because it is done on the edges (read "fringes") of mainstream science, and is done by a small and extensively self-referential group. As I said above, this is not fringe in the pejorative sense, but in the most neutral sense. I might be wrong (I'm writing off the top of my head, based on what I know about a subject that is not a primary interest of mine), but that would be due to my mis-remembering facts, not due to any bias on my part. In truth, I think this is a laudable field worth pursuing. Calling my statements POV is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications, especially on the FRINGE issues. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants: Excuse me. I should have been more specific. My point was how Ronz is now trying to use "FRINGE issues" to leverage his POV at my bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine. I can see how one could make the case that Ronz is pushing a POV, given that I agree with you about the lead paragraph. However, bear in mind that Ronz has been here since 2005 at least and has more experience editing WP than most of the rest of us combined. If he argued with a suggestion of mine, I would certainly give him the benefit of the doubt. I'd try to see things from his perspective so as to better address the situation, instead of accusing him of POV pushing (even if he accused you of it first) and focusing on that. His POV is informed by over a decade of editing WP, and is worth listening to. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have acted in good faith, but Ronz really has become a condescending bully at my bio. And according to Wikipedia records he has had problems over the years editing. I have repeatedly brought up the issue of civility when he has been rude. Ronz wants his POV at my bio. I am what he says I am.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You claim you are acting in good faith, then immediately accuse Ronz of being a bully? Also, note that wikipedia requires us to not only edit in good faith, but to assume good faith on the part of others. Has it occurred to you that Ronz simply vociferously disagrees with you? You might gain more traction if you could figure out why he disagrees, rather than trying to win the argument. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your sentiment and I agree with the principle. But after some time Ronz has repeatedly behaved badly. I came to my conclusion based upon his behavior. Perhaps you are right. But he seems dug into a POV. Ronz makes claims about me as if he knows me. It's a bit weird.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(EC) The problem is that RAR is notable for his deprogramming and the high profile cases involved in that. However given the passing of time, that is not substantially all of his work. As Wikipedia works off of reliable sources, and his other accomplishments just do not have the weight (in sources) of his former career, any article will understandably be slanted towards his former job rather than his latter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about anyone else, but for a while a thought he was the same person as the other Rick Ross. This Rick Alan Ross is almost only famous as a n ex-cult member turned cult deprogrammer as far as I can tell. I like his website for debunking other cult stuff because he always cites his sources well and from my experience, he always represents his sources well, so when his website comes up in a google search, I tend think it's a good place to start off research... FWIW. What else is he known for? —PermStrump  ( talk )  16:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But I am not an ex-cult member. The Cult Education Institute is a widely known database launched 20 years ago and a nonprofit tax-exempted educational charity and online library (member of ALA and NJLA). The edits suggested at the Talk page of my bio are supported by many reliable sources. Rather than only stating under Occupation "Deprogrammer" the suggested edits would reflect the fact that I am a cult intervention specialist ("deprogrammer"}, court expert and author. I am not suggesting that the Scott case or my ongoing deprogramming work be ignored. But that is not why I am sought as an expert and frequently interviewed. Isn't historical context/perspective important to maintain NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Alan Ross (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 May 2016‎
 * Thank you. But I am not an ex-cult member. The Cult Education Institute is a widely known database launched 20 years ago and a nonprofit tax-exempted educational charity and online library (member of ALA and NJLA). The edits suggested at the Talk page of my bio are supported by many reliable sources. Rather than only stating under Occupation "Deprogrammer" the suggested edits would reflect the fact that I am a cult intervention specialist ("deprogrammer"}, court expert and author. I am not suggesting that the Scott case or my ongoing deprogramming work be ignored. But that is not why I am sought as an expert and frequently interviewed. Isn't historical context/perspective important to maintain NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Alan Ross (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 May 2016‎

Can someone address the FRINGE concerns please? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hah sorry. Maybe can you rephrase or give specific examples? I'm not sure what exactly the question is. —PermStrump  ( talk )  17:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if it's a fringe view that cults have the capacity to brain wash people and if other people are able to deprogram the brainwashing? —PermStrump  ( talk )  17:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if we should use the term new religious movement rather than cult? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You're all jumping ahead. I guess then that you all agree that there are fringe issues here and we need to go to the next step and determine how to present them properly (if they are not already).
 * So do we agree that it is indeed a fringe viewpoint that "cults have the capacity to brain wash people and if other people are able to deprogram the brainwashing?"
 * As for the use of "cult", it appears meaningless beyond a derogatory classification to encourage bias and assumptions based upon that bias. New religious movement seems more descriptive, though it appears Ross is fairly indiscriminate on how he applies the word "cult". --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Appears Ross is fairly indiscriminate on how he applies the word 'cult'". This is a false statement. I am very specific and focused about the use of this word. There is an entire chapter of my book devoted to "Defining a Destructive Cult" with copious footnotes. I propose that there is a nucleus for the definition of a destructive cult based upon Lifton's three core criteria in his paper "Cult Formation." . Many groups called "cults" don't fit these criteria.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I am not particularly familiar with the way RAR uses the word "cult", I have some familiarity with NRMs in general, and I am aware that there are still today, well after the term new religious movement became the politically-correct standard term for such groups, regular usage of the word "cult" to specifically relate to those groups which engage in the greatest and most frequent usage of what might be called "coercive persuasion" or similar terms. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no lack of RSs here, so I say we put statements about the effects and nature of brainwashing and deprogramming into the sources' voices. There's already some criticism there, so that's all that really needs to be done, IMHO. Also, New Religious Movement is a better term for being more neutral, but cult is bound to be clearer to most readers. I think we should use both: define the groups as NRMs, but also mention that they're called "cults" and refer to them as cults whenever it's clear that they meet the strictest definition. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh wait I was just clarifying what you were asking. I'm not sure if I think the belief that people can be brainwashed is a fringe view. I never really thought about it. I have a feeling that the mainstream public opinion might be different than the scientific view, which would need to be contextualized differently than even fringier fringe, but I have to research more. Stefan Molyneux's wife had sanctions put on her license to practice psychology in Canada for encouraging her patients to "deFOO" (sever ties from their family). I'm still looking for sources, but I'm pretty sure that there was discussion about that being a component of brainwashing, though now I'm not positive if that was only in the popular press or if it came from the board of psychology. —PermStrump  ( talk )  18:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See the writings of Edgar Schein, Benjamin Zablocki, Robert Cialdini, Robert Jay Lifton, Stanley Milgram, Leon Festinger and Philip Zimbardo. There is quite a bit of research on influence, undue influence and cognitive dissonance. The ability of one person to gain undue influence over another person is matter of law in court.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Brainwashing is a distinct subset of cases of undue influence. Therefore, proving that undue influence is well covered in the literature does not prove that brainwashing is well covered in the literature. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Brainwashing" is a word used in popular culture to describe what is technically called thought reform by Lifton or coercive persuasion by Schein. Lifton's book is a study of "brainwashing" In a court proceeding the net result of coercive persuasion techniques would legally be called undue influence.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is helpful for the ongoing discussion of this BLP to be fragmented into three different places (the article talkpage, the BLP noticeboard, and here). On the substance of the WP:FRINGE issue, I am not sure what the discussion here is seeking to achieve in terms of the article content. Some people may have one from of Mr. Ross's activities and "worldview" and some may have a different view, but the relevant question here is how this affects what we say in the BLP about him? Editors should also bear in mind that unlike the usual "fringe theories being pushed" situations discussed on this noticeboard, in this case we are talking about the BLP of an individual who probably would just as soon not have an article at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Though the subject's behavior has not been optimal, he has valid concerns, especially regarding the first sentence. There is stiff opposition to changing it. The article needs more experienced hands. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't really my field, psychology, but, from what little I am able to understand, RAR has been, in the past, one of the primary players in the area of brainwashing, which, again, from what little I understand of this, is more or less a specific variant of operant conditioning, much like Stockholm syndrome. I am not myself really sure that "brainwashing" qualifies as fringe in the field of psychology, and am not myself sufficiently knowledgable about it to say anything one way or another. Since then, the individual has, apparently, been more regularly discussed in the broad field of "cultish" NRMs, a field which includes brainwashing in its history but also deals with more broad social, psychological, and cultural issues as well. I'm not sure I would say Ernest Hemingway is most notable for The Sun Also Rises, although that argument would seem to me to bear many of the same features as the one about whether RAR is "most notable" for deprogramming. Maybe an RfC, involving all the relevant specialties around here, might be useful? John Carter (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But I'll repeat my question from above: what specific issue relating to the content of the article would be addressed in this RfC, as opposed to a general (and contentious and likely inconclusive) broader theoretical discussion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess one question for an RFC would be, should the first sentence say more than "Rick Alan Ross is an American deprogrammer." I think that would be a good place to start. That doesn't involve this noticeboard though. —PermStrump  ( talk )  20:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think, like the above, an RfC, at least a first one, might deal with one or more possible variations on the first sentence of the article, and/or the nature and structure of the lede. I personally think that maybe in addition to the one PermStrump proposes above might be "Rick Alan Ross is a noted expert in the field of cults, who gained early notoriety for his involvement in controversies related to deprogramming" or something similar. I also think maybe the lede could be expanded to four paragraphs, the first a summary, the second about his early professional work, etc. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Honestly, I'm surprised that there's even opposition to changing it. I respect, but I really don't understand his position on the lead. IMHO, it should obviously be changed. See my first post, above. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I took that position on the talk page and ran into a wall of opposition, no point in pursuing it. To be fair, the subject's aggressive conduct did not help. Also agree, this is not the place to discuss that, not sure the point of this discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the great discussion. I'd like to leave this (how to handle the fringe issues properly in the article) in others' hands. I've still a number of BLP/NPOV concerns (the poor sources, the lack of depth in the recent sources, WP:NOTNEWS, how we balance the heavily- and well-documented deprogramming work and outcome with the lightly- and poorly-documented work since. However, this isn't the venue if we can get the fringe issues fairly settled. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not just change the lead sentence the way Rick wants? I don't see how that could be interpreted as damaging to the article, as it would be factual. The rest of his suggested changes can be passed up, per WP:WEIGHT as you have pointed out. But the lead -as it stands- is factually inaccurate. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Make the changes to to the lead. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done. And Ronz has had input on the nature of the change, as well. I believe the current version of the lead sentence is a good compromise between both sides. In fact, I think it's damn near as good as could possibly be. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

NUCCA
Deletion review. See Deletion_review/Log/2016_May_25. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * A fringe sourced article almost entirely to pro-chiropractic sources, yet editors are happy with this. Disappointing outcome. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology
The article Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology has recently been created. I'm a bit suspicious, because searching for "nyambo" and "salt" doesn't return results that confirm the claims made in the article. Could some other editors take a look? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Now at Articles for deletion/Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology‎. See also Articles for deletion/Sukuma Ancient Milk Technology‎. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association


I found this article in a shocking state - for example, it claimed that "On January 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court elected to pass over OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto, and let stand the Court of Appeals ruling, effectively ending the lawsuit giving the farmers a partial victory." That's rubbish. Monsanto won the case (e.g. Reuters), the farmers merely got a legally binding promise for Monsanto not to do something they never did anyway. See Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser where the "accidental" contamination claim was withdrawn and tests subsequently showed that 95%-98% of the crop was infringing.

Incidentally, the Reuters piece summarises the dispute nicely:
 * "Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the company's chief litigation counsel.
 * "The lower courts agreed there was no controversy between the parties," McClain added, "and the Supreme Court's decision not to review the case brings closure on this matter."
 * OSGATA President Jim Gerritsen said he was disappointed in the high court's refusal to hear the case.
 * "The Supreme Court failed to grasp the extreme predicament family farmers find themselves in," said Gerritsen, a Maine organic seed farmer. "The Court of Appeals agreed our case had merit. However, ... safeguards they ordered are insufficient to protect our farms and our families."

Appealing to the fact of lower court allowing the case, as some kind of rebuttal to the actual outcome? Er, right. These folks are very obviously using the bogeyman of prosecution for accidental contamination, which never has happened and apparently never will, as a Trojan horse to try to strike down seed patents altogether, something which is openly acknowledged within the crunchy community (e.g. ).

I do not know if this group is notable at all, or if the article should simply be a redirect tot he court case. The court case article, and several related ones, also need a careful review because this kind of spin is rampant wherever Monsanto is discussed on Wikipedia, as I think we all know. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Integral Institute
Slowly but surely, we're climbing that mountain.

Articles for deletion/Integral Institute

jps (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Is Ken Wilber notable? The sourcing looks alright on first glance, but it's mainly one book by Visser and a handful of possibly trivial mentions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to find a decent amount of hits for him in news an academic journals 2 days ago when this first went up (I searched "'ken wilber' integral"), but I didn't look into deep enough to check the quality of many of the sources or how many were definitely talking about this Ken Wilber. A few were definitely him though. Apparently he's buds with Deepak Chopra and some people in Hollywood, so I guess that's why. I mean, and because his ideas have merit. :-P But seriously I think he's at least notable enough that people have written criticism of him in independent reliable sources. PermStrump (talk)  15:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The story here is that practitioners and acolytes of Integral theory (Ken Wilber) arrived at Wikipedia very early on and constructed a massive WP:Walled garden of articles on the subject which up until relatively recently were ruthlessly guarded from attempts at clean-up. I occasionally try to go into that and related articles and weed whack with varying degrees of success (search the FTN archives). I question whether we really need Template:Integral thought anymore. Many of the linked articles are redirects or lack links back to Ken Wilber's stuff owing to WP:ONEWAY. jps (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In any case: Articles for deletion/Sean Esbjörn-Hargens. jps (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also : Articles for deletion/Yasuhiko Kimura. jps (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I might need to take back what I said about Ken Wilber having enough notability for people to criticize him. It seems like that might all be in-universe too. I was glad for the context, because I was confused about how all of this existed. It seems like Ken Wilber and his ideas only needs one page at most.  —PermStrump  ( talk )  03:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I had the interesting experience of coming to Wikipedia in learn about Wilber in 2007, seeing a version roughly like this (note the extended criticism), and then coming back a year or two ago and being surprised at how positive it was (and noticing that trend across related articles). Looks like the criticism section was removed wholesale here. Honestly just didn't feel like taking the plunge to sort out a bunch of articles that I wasn't entirely sure about and don't know all that much about, but I'm glad others are. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks to be an interesting summary of his popularity (and then not). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And here is a post about managing the articles on Wikipedia posted to kenwilber.com by a sock puppeteer. Fun. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time telling what's inside the "walled garden" and what are the things outside of the walled garden that Wilber claims to be associated with. For example, I associate transpersonal psychology with woo and Wilber associates his integral theories with transpersonal psychology. So is transpersonal psychology within his wall garden or is Wilber's integral theory woo that branched off of woo and created its own walled garden? This is an honest question. It seems like anytime I'm trying to edit a legitimate article about psychology, somehow I end up on an article that associates itself with transpersonal psychology. Just the other day I wanted to edit some poorly sourced woo on either Child development or Developmental psychology and clickede a link to Prenatal and perinatal psychology, which I ended up posting about here a few threads up. So is prenatal and perinatal psychology related to Wilber's walled garden too? —PermStrump  ( talk )  15:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wilberites commandeered a number of pages over a period of years that were related to integral theory. These included transpersonal psychology, many of the pages on yoga, holism, quantum mysticism, and even subjects such as transdisciplinarity. That you are having a hard time figuring out where the walls of the garden are is a testament to their subsequent decay. In articles that got more attention, Wilber's ideas have been quickly excised. In articles that are more obscure, the garden seems to remain. jps (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Steve McIntosh
Related to the above:



Anyone think these articles deserve a place in Wikipedia? I almost put them up for deletion, but hesitated. jps (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm thinking 'No' for Steve. Haven't looked into the other one yet. From what I can tell, these are the independent sources cited in the article that I was able to verify (not counting local news reports):
 * 1. "Zen and the art of shut-eye maintenance", Forbes, November 30, 1998
 * 2. The War On Partisanship, National Journal, Dec 2015


 * I couldn't access the full text to verify these references:
 * 1. "Cool Zen Tools", GQ, December 2000
 * 2. "Beyond the Culture Wars: an Unconventional Summit on the Future of the Right", National Journal, July 16, 2015
 * 3. The Next Enlightenment: Integrating East and West in a New Vision of Human Evolution, by Walter Truett Anderson, St Martin’s Press


 * Works by Steve McIntosh that weren't published by an integral-affiliated or Unification Church-affiliated publishing house:
 * 1. Evolution's Purpose: An Integral Interpretation of the Scientific Story of Our Origins, SelectBooks 2012
 * 2. "Integral Politics and the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture", Tikkun Magazine, 2008


 * FWIW Ebscohost says the GQ thing is an "inset" in another article called, "Time Out!", so to me sounds like it might just be an ad for the alarm clock. I requested it from libs for fun. I have no idea how reliable of a source National Journal is. Or what the reputations are of Tikkun Magazine or SelectBooks. The only additional independent source I found in my own search was a passing mention in this LA Times article.
 * TLDR: At most, there are 5 independent sources that cover McIntosh and 2 of his works were published by seemingly independent publishers. Even if we assume the 3 that aren't easily accessible online are legit, do you think 5 sources passes WP:NBIO? I don't participate in AFDs on people usually. —PermStrump  ( talk )  01:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
In addition to the article Integral Institute, there is an article integral theory (Ken Wilber), a navbox Integral thought. I would suggest that it is worth taking a close look at the articles linking to the article integral thought, via what links here. In at least some cases, integral theory is linked from "mainstream" articles, probably in violation of WP:FRINGE. In other cases, we have walled garden articles that probably should be merged. We don't need dozens of articles on so-called "integral theory". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are whole categories of this stuff, that could do with a serious source check - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , good point. Except Integral Institute and Integral theory (Ken Wilber) and BLP's for other integral "thought leaders", so far all of the wikilinks I've clicked on in the past few days had already been redirected to Wilber's BLP. But from what I've learned from the discussion here, I won't be shocked to find out there are tons more. Imagine my surprise yesterday to learn that the California Institute of Integral Studies was a real place that's actually accredited by WASC. I'm still kind of confused about that. —PermStrump  ( talk )  16:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned this before, but perhaps it bares repeating: accreditation in the United States is a private peer-review enterprise. Universities and colleges in the regional associations accredit themselves and that is what stands for the means by which federal funds are disbursed (per law). There is no Ministry of Education in the US that dictates which schools are accredited and which are not, perhaps much to the chagrin of those of us who would like to see more consistency in the way this process unfolds. Essentially, the main goal of accreditation is not to determine whether the academic rigor or subject material offered by the school is legitimate or not, but rather that the school is actively and seriously working to fulfill its own mission statement. In this way, explicitly pseudoscientific schools can and do get accredited in the US. When schools are not accredited it is usually because the school did not bother to attempt to receive accreditation which, in spite of its mealy-mouthed-ness, is still a considerable undertaking requiring resources invested and committees willing to jump through hoops to prove that the school is living up to its own standards. Accreditation should be treated like peer review. Lack of it is a huge WP:REDFLAG, but the simple fact that a school is accredited just says that the school has mustered the resources in time, money, and influence to convince a group of visiting administrators that the school was working towards the goals it set out for itself. Nothing more and nothing less. Accreditation says nothing in and of itself as to how legitimate the education at a college or university actually is. jps (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Template Deletion Discussion
Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_24 is now live.

jps (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

List of integral thinkers and supporters
This could use some intelligent reworking.

jps (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program
Articles for deletion/Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program.

jps (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Two more articles up for deletion
Articles for deletion/Frank Visser.

Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext.

You know the drill.

jps (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Other potentially problematic biographies
This list was taken from the above biography. Not all of these biographies are problematic, but many are.


 * Michel Bauwens
 * Don Edward Beck
 * Robert A. McDermott
 * Jorge Ferrer
 * Jordan S. Gruber
 * Wouter Hanegraaff
 * Rod Hemsell
 * John Heron
 * David C. Lane
 * Joe Perez
 * Wayne Teasdale
 * Lawrence Wollersheim
 * Michael E. Zimmerman

jps (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Randall Fontes
Blatant fringe problems. Apparently notable for claiming plants have consciousness. Problem is, only fringe sources have been cited for this claim. For example there is a section that says "This Report supports the possibility that plants may respond to human consciousness as contended by Cleve Backster", the reference for this is Bird Tompkins authors of the pseudoscientific book The Secret Life of Plants, this is hardly reliable. The article also uses psychic websites like this which are entirely unreliable. A large chunk of this article may have to be deleted. Any suggestions? HealthyGirl (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am going through the sources on this article one by one so far there was a personal interview with Dean Radin used as a source and a psychic website arguing that chakras release psychic energy, to be honest I do not think anything of these sources are reliable. This article may qualify for afd. HealthyGirl (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to TNT it completely, but I removed two sections. If anyone else feels like they should TNT it, you probably should, if no one brings this up for AFD. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, problem is the article still has unreliable references and I can't locate any reliable ones. I think it should be deleted, last AFD was 2010 and was a keep but only four voters. It might be worthwhile re-submitting. I do not object to fringe claims if they are notable or covered in decent sources, but this guy almost seems to be a nobody. I can't locate any decent sources that describe his work. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Need somebody with High Beam to check the first 6 refs. Old news coverage, may or may not be in-depth or specific to Fontes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be a very good idea to get some of those with access to pretty much any subscription services at WP:RX to look at this one. I, unfortunately, already have one request there, and think it would look strange to add another one myself, so will defer to others in that regard. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll submit it. I have access to EBSCO Information Services and PubMed, but I don't think there will be anything there. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 20:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : I'm not sure if the references have been edited since you made that comment. Are these the 6 references you're referring to:
 * San Francisco Examiner & Chronicle - Sunday January 6, 1974, Book Review By John White "Relation of Plants and Mankind"
 * The Daily Review - Friday, August 5, 1977, By Glennda Chui "Castro Valley men probe the secret life of plants" Hayward, California
 * The Press Democrat - Sunday. September 31, 1972, By Staff Writer "talk nice to plants....they may be listening!" Santa Rosa, California
 * Steven Halpern, Louis M. Savary (1985) "Sound health: the music and sounds that make us whole" Harper & Row, pg. 46
 * Ocala Star-Banner - Thursday, July 7, 1977, Sixth sense By Dr. Van Nuys "What's This About Plants That Communicate?" Ocala, Florida
 * San Francisco Examiner - Monday, March 28, 1977, Ivan Sharpe "E. Bay pair prove that plants lead secret lives"
 * If they exist, I can most likely access them through the library at work. Just wanted to make sure I'm looking for the right articles. —PermStrump  ( talk )  21:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. The article cites an awful lot of personal biographic info to these sources. I'd like to know if they are valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I found the articles on this site, but it looks a bit suspicious. These articles would definitely need to be confirmed if they exist or not. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That website is registered to Randall Fontes. I do not believe it is reliable for a number of reasons. It supports the pseudoscientific experiments of Cleve Backster without acknowledging any of the criticisms of those experiments. HealthyGirl (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Darn! I only have online access to the San Francisco Chronicle/Examiner back to 1985. :( I'll request sources 1-4, and 6 the from the library. Not #5 because it's a book, so I'd have to show up at the library to get it and... I'm not going to do that. I probably won't hear anything about the articles until the end of next week at the earliest, and that's assuming they exist. The librarians will stop looking after 30 days. At that point, I think it would be safe to assume that whatever they haven't found by then doesn't exist, but we'll probably all have forgotten about this by then., did they say how long it would take to find out if they're approving your request? —PermStrump  ( talk )  00:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have an article about him. Send me an email if you want it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : Which one is it? Does it make you think he's notable enough for an article? I thought this was definitely a hoax at first, because those articles on ebdir.net seemed really suspicious, even before said it's registered to Randall Fontes. But now I'm second guessing myself. That book The Secret Life of Plants really does mention Fontes's research, which I was surprised to find was true. Someone on youtube uploaded the full length movie of documentary based on the book. That link should start the video at 33 minutes 30 seconds with a guy wearing a blue button-down and he's introduced as Randy Fontes around 33:36. (No, I didn't watch 33 minutes of it to find him. :-P I knew what scene I was looking for based on this youtube video that looks like someone's first foray into video editing.) For the sake of discussion, let's assume we know that this YT video is the real documentary, Fontes is in it for a couple of solid minutes talking about his research. I'm not suggesting we use the YT video as a source, but hypothetically the documentary would be another point towards Fontes's notability I guess? Regardless, it makes me think there's a chance that the article in the San Fransisco Chronicle that reviews the book might actually exist and it might actually mention Fontes. And then that makes me think maybe the others are legit too. We shall see though.  —PermStrump  ( talk )  00:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Email me, I'll forward it to you. I don't have your email address, so I can't send it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Although it doesn't make me confident that he is notable, it makes me doubt it even more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am unconvinced that most of these sources discuss Fontes in depth. His only rise to 'fame' appears to be his replication attempts of Cleve Backster's experiments, but run search terms on "Cleve Backter" and "Fontes", nothing reliable comes up on any search engine, nothing on Google books, nor JSTOR or any academic book cites this guy. I don't think he is notable enough. Note that he is mentioned on this article Plant perception (paranormal), a redirect might be possible if no sources are found. HealthyGirl (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try searching a college library that I have access to, but I don't think that there will be anything. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to be bold and list it at AfD. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Random comment; did you know that Ear candling is a thing? I didn't. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 01:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A) Ew. B) No. —PermStrump  ( talk )  01:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly yes, I follow the world of quackery with some interest. There are more forms of bullshit than mere man can comprehend. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

John Traynor (Royal Marine)
I am not sure if he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Problem with the article is that his alleged miracle of being cured is presented as factual. Only religious or fringe books endorsing miracles as genuine seem to mention this guy. Seems to be a serious lack of reliable sources. Any suggestions? HealthyGirl (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : Did you notice this WP:Articles for deletion/John Traynor (Royal Marine)? —PermStrump  ( talk )  02:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Article is in serious violation of WP:Fringe. I can't be bothered to deal with this anymore. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Odd posting. Traynor is believed by some pious Catholics to have experienced a "miracle cure" in the waters at the shrine of Lourdes.  Article is reliably sourced to mainstream book/articles that discuss the cure as something that some of the faithful believe happened.  I am not claiming that taking the waters at Lourdes cures anyone, only that bringing this particular article to  WP:Fringe is decidedly odd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources are not all reliable, for example Paul Glynn is a priest who argues miracles are real. The Guardian piece which has a single line dedicated to Traynor also treats the miracle as factual. There is no evidence this 'miracle' ever occurred. Traynor was probably a fraud. No critical/skeptical coverage of his claims exists. The article is endorsing his fringe claims as factual. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. One of the sources is a book by Paul Glynn, a Catholic priest noted for his post-WWII reconciliation work with Japan.  But the book I was referring to was is Lourdes, A Modern Pilgrimage by the noted travel writer, journalist and biographer Patrick Marnham. I am at a loss to understand HealthyGirl's odd position on sources in re: the John Traynor article, or why she has dragged it to this discussion board.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All catholic priests argue miracles are real. Arguably all catholics believe in them. It's a bit of a reach to declare a religion 'fringe'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, belief in literal miracles is clearly fringe in the sense that, for example, literal bilocation is physically impossible and only fringe theorists propose otherwise. That's not to say that the entire religion is "fringe". Only one literal interpretation of it. jps (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying 'its physically impossible' is not an argument for fringe material when the counter is 'God can do it if he wants to'. Miracles are *miracles* and not subject to earthly explanation or evidence. If you could evidence a miracle, it wouldnt be a miracle, it would be science. So in that aspect they are not 'fringe'. People who try to explain miracles with scientific methods are clearly fringe or pseudoscience, but very few religious people actually do that. Miracles are not put forth as any sort of science. I suppose there might be miracles which would be considered 'fringe miracles' even amongst the religious (bilocation would probably be one). But given Catholic belief states that every Catholic is the recipient of transubstantion (a literal miracle) multiple times in their lives... To get back to the original post: a book written by the religious that claims a miracle of healing is factual is not fringe. Healing miracles are one of the most common and widespread miracles there are. Millions and millions of people in various religions trek to sacred spots to pray for healing, and (allegedly) some are answered. I would expect someone who claims to the be the recipient of a healing miracle to show up in religious books. Because those are the people who believe in it. Now if someone was suggesting there was a scientific basis for a man regaining the use of his legs, that would possibly be fringe. But that is not the case here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable sources, not wishful thinking. If the counter to a point that bilocation is physically impossible is that God does what God wants to, then the claim is fringe because no WP:MAINSTREAM academic (be they secular or religious) seriously makes that claim. People who believe that miracles literally happen are adopting pseudoscientific arguments, we have no disagreement there. The fact that millions and millions of people may believe in fringe theories is immaterial. Millions and people believe the Earth is the center of the universe, for example.
 * If a religious person claims that faith healing is occurring, such claims are subject to skeptical inquiry. The best that has ever been done is to point out the vague and unsubstantiated aspects to such claims. However, most true believers in such nonsense tend to go one further. It is at this point that they start to engage in wishful thinking and pseudoscience. Honest practitioners of faith do not fight the plain contradiction with physical fact, they let the mystery lie. Dishonest believers argue that God is a literal presence with physical powers that can be measured. See creationism and related religious-based pseudoscientific arguments. Belief in literal miracles to the extent that one claims that, for example, measurable supernatural action is the only possible explanation, is necessarily a pseudoscientific enterprise.
 * Also, to be clear, transubstantiation is couched in Catholic theology by association with unobserverable Aristotlian "substance" and therefore it is not a literal miracle in the physical (or the Aristotlian "accidents") sense. No Catholic believes that the particles of bread if examined under a microscope would turn out to be literal human somatic cells.
 * jps (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Only in death has this exactly right: "All catholic priests argue miracles are real. Arguably all Catholics believe in them. It's a bit of a reach to declare a religion 'fringe'."  As do all believers in all faiths.  User:HealthyGirl was incorrect to categorize (the question of whether a miracle took place is separate) that a miracle took place at Lourdes as a Fringe theory.  The belief in miracles by the world's large, ancient, and mainstream religions is by definition mainstream, not fringe.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Faith healing via magical action of Our Lady of Lourdes is just as much pseudoscience as is any other faith healing claim. WP:MAINSTREAM refers to experts, and experts in the natural, physical, and medical worlds are basically in agreement that literal miracles of the sort argued for by true believers in many faiths simply do not happen. To argue otherwise is necessarily in the purview of WP:FRINGE. Just because major religions accommodate beliefs in fringe theories, doesn't mean that they are insulated from the injunction to write a serious encyclopedia. jps (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Time slip
A deletion review OK'd the article to be recreated without the poorly-sourced "paranormal phenomenon" content, but now Time_slip is back. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see Retrocognition, it is the same as Time Slip but only has fringe sources. I believe we should redirect retrocognition to Time Slip. HealthyGirl (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the Time slip article now correctly focuses on the fictional narrative device. Retrocognition seems to be a subset of Extrasensory perception, so should be merged to that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also see the discussion on the talk page for the Time travel in fiction article, there is a possibility of merging Time slip into that article, I think it is about time we made some progress on this. Users are voting on the talk-page . HealthyGirl (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Brainwave entrainment
While brainwave entrainment (BWE) does seem to be at least a legitimate concept within RS, the topic area is also rife with fringe claims and our article on it seems full of OR. Anybody familiar with this topic area? Alexbrn (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Esoteric astrology


Not actually a tautology, it seems. Replete with Truths stated in Wikipedia's voice. Formerly a merge and redirect to Alice Bailey, I'm unsure if anything is salvageable from the more recent content. CIreland (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed all the content which was sourced only from Bailey's own books, basically as an unsourced plot summary. Doesn't leave much. I wonder if this is notable bollocks after all? Guy (Help!) 15:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The book by Bailey might be notable, I don't know, but I have been through a few reference works relating to the occult, new age, etc., and don't remember seeing this mentioned even as a separate article in any of them. I haven't checked any specifically astrological reference works, however. At this point, though, I tend to agree that there is probably sufficient cause to maybe AfD this article based on the lack of sufficient coverage to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ganzfeld experiment

 * Edits from problematic IP address who wants to insert into the lead the opinion that only skeptics have a problem with Ganzfeld experiments and that they have been replicated. Claims in his edits that it is "vandalism" and pseudo-skeptic POV to assert otherwise. TreeTrailer (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientific consensus
There's been some disagreement over adding the term scientific consensus to part of the WP:FRINGE guideline. More eyes from folks here familiar with scientific consensus and fringe theories would be appreciated at the talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis
Stumbled upon the article for Answers in Genesis a few weeks back and noticed giant sections that rely almost entirely -- or entirely -- on primary sources. I removed a big section, but it's been restored. I'd welcome additional eyeballs to gauge the situation according to best practices. Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 4. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In related news, the WP:RNPOV-violating brigade does not like it when you identify the facts about the age of the Earth/Universe and common descent at both this article and Ken Ham. Help at those two locations would be appreciated as it seems that there are a number of conservative Christians convinced that these ideas are just "opinions" and not facts. jps (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And so it goes. jps (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Adrian Gilbert
Articles for deletion/Adrian Gilbert.

jps (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Khader
Homeopathy, laetrile, diets to cure cancer. Would appreciate some other eyes on this article as I don't have much time for Wikipedia editing this week. Kolbasz (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

And listed at AfD, as notability is dubious. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dr. Khader ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

DNA teleportation
doh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I cleaned up the opening couple sentences, but still needs work. -ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The original creator of that article has significantly expanded it since your discussion three days ago. I question whether this article should even exist - isn't this just about a hypothesis that is only put forward in two papers that nobody else agrees with? --Krelnik (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, possibly. You can put it up at AfD if you want. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Does this have any notability outside Montagnier? Guy (Help!) 21:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Potentially, I'm not sure. Are you going to nominate it for deletion? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Randolph Stone
Criticism of this guys quackery being deleted from the article. User claims there was a "consensus" to remove criticisms from the article on the talk-page, but there wasn't, because these new sources were added in April.HealthyGirl (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I left a comment on the talk page. --Krelnik (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And Lo, the other editor restored your text, but down in the body instead of in the lede. Seems like a fair compromise. --Krelnik (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice there are multiple references (18,19,20,21) to criticism of Stone's polarity therapy, but the article text presents them in as few words as possible. I wonder if anyone has access to some of the books cited, and could they check to see if these are in depth critiques or passing mentions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. I have read two of those books. They do not mention Stone in heavy detail, only a small mention on one page but they do mention Stone in name. Jack Raso for example basically lists Stone's therapy as containing pseudoscientific claims that are unproven. One of the other sources basically says his therapy is untestable (the stuff about vital forces etc). I am having a difficulty finding other sources that strictly mention Stone's name, so I think those will just have to do. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Georges Lakhovsky
This is the only radionics proponent on Wikipedia that I cannot find any reliable references for, any ideas? HealthyGirl (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You could AfD it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You could also combine him into the radionics article itself. But it'll still need /some/ reliable refs!-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Creation Museum
The Creation Museum article could use attention from people knowledgeable about creationism promotion. The article does not appear to be neutral, with the content geared towards promotional, almost reading like the Museum's web page. Additional eyes on this article would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed a couple of the religious leaders who were quoted criticizing the museum were referred to as "theistic evolutionists" or something like that, which I removed because I only saw it in the creationist sources as a way to describe other people. Is that some kind of dig or is that something people would call themselves? —PermStrump  ( talk )  20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that much of a dig, it's fairly descriptive. A number of prominent advocates of the scientific consensus on evolution (e.g. Richard Dawkin, Eugenie Scott, Jerry Coyne, etc) are also atheists. So this term distinguishes people who are not atheist but are pro-evolution. Many Roman Catholics would fall in this category. --Krelnik (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The use of term "theistic evolutionists" in a creationism-themed article struck me as odd, as if the article was attempting to create "shades" of evolutionists. It seemed like an intricate detail and not easily understood by the general public (i.e. readers of Wikipedia). I'm not well versed in creationism, but any attempts to qualify "evolution" as "scientific consensus on evolution", "Darwin's evolution theory" or overusing "scientific consensus" in general seem like obfuscation to me. Similar theme came up on the article about the man behind the Creation Museum: Talk:Ken_Ham. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The term "theistic evolution" is sometimes used in self-description. Francis Collins uses the term to describe his own ideas in The Language of God.  However, it can be ambiguous, since it can sometimes simply mean the idea that evolution and belief in God are compatible, and it can sometimes refer to a stronger claim that God is directly involved in the evolutionary process.  If the critical comments are from religious leaders or authors, I would think the more relevant information would be their position and religious affiliation, field of work, etc. --Amble (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "theistic evolution" is a term that's used in discussion of creationism, by both believers and skeptics. It's a bit jargony, but not implicitly POV - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the clarifications. The article was (is) having much bigger problems than this, and is still in need of attention, although much progress has been made so far: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Randall Fontes is back
Randall Fontes was deleted, it is now back at User:Valoem/Randall Fontes. HealthyGirl (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Seriously? It got nominated at AfD and deleted due to notability concerns. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently the same admin who performed the deletion (MBisanz) restored the text a few days later and moved it to that user's space. I assume this was done on that user's request in the hopes of revamping the article. (See the pink delete comments here) ETA: He made the request on MBisanz's talk page and linked to three sources he plans to add here. --Krelnik (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I really don't know how good these sources are, also, they are just a mention of him, not in-depth coverage. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * None of Valoem's cited sources are reliable, here's the first one which is the book "The 8th Chakra: What It Is and How It Can Transform Your Life". A description of the book reads "In this astounding book, scientist, healer, and mystic Jude Currivan, Ph.D., reveals a revolutionary new perception of the cosmos, reconciling leading-edge science with Spirit and the perennial wisdom of all ages into a universal model of consciousness. She also explains how the energies of the 8th chakra offer us a path to spiritual mastery." One of the other sources this user cited is self-published and even crazier than the above described book. Yet apparently according to this user these sources address the Afd concerns? I am amazed that an admin restored this from a request from such bogus sources. HealthyGirl (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Which one was self-published? I agree, none of these sources are reliable, and they are bogus. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On Google books you can click "about this book". In this case, iUniverse is listed as the publisher. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can gently encourage the user to submit the article for creation instead of just moving it to mainspace, to get those sources vetted properly this time around. Otherwise we're just going to have to take it through AFD again. --Krelnik (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * First time around I tried to request some of the older newspaper articles from the library and they uploaded into my account PDF screenshots of the articles hosted on Fonte's website. :( —PermStrump  ( talk )  16:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move discussion at Jewish nose
Requested move -- inputs from interested editors would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please weigh in. —PermStrump  ( talk )  04:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Monica the Medium
This article on Monica Ten-Kate, whose cold readings are broadcast on the ABC-owned Freeform network, is at risk of growing credulous... Would appreciate if those who have watchlisted Tyler Henry and applied appropriate skepticism would also pay ongoing attention to some of Monica's recent edits and (possibly) PR-motivated additions. Thanks. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean like this glaring copyright violation? Removed it. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC).

Thanks! This is probably going to be a problem, can you place a protection on this article if this continues? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm watching it, but there hasn't been overly much IP activity so faar. The copyvio was added by an autoconfirmed user, who has been warned. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Damn it Bish, I was just about to remove that copyvio ! -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

New fringey editor off to a running start
This new user has only been around for 6 days and has created at least 6 articles already. These four are definitely very fringeworthy and seem of dubious notability to me. At least one of his articles appears to have been created by taking an article from Romanian Wikipedia and running it through Google Translate. Would appreciate some extra eyes. --Krelnik (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Netta Fornario
 * Eleonore Zugun
 * Pollock Twins case
 * Van Meter Visitor
 * Laetitia Toureaux
 * Laetitia Toureaux
 * Hey, it's mentioned in the first edit that it's taken from Romanian wikipedia. -- X-Men   XtremE  01:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Different language Wikipedias do not have the same standards. What works at one language version of Wikipedia doesn't work at another.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Previously, I couldn't reply due to edit conflict. Why he calls me fringey editor? X-Men   XtremE  05:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, it's an absolutely terrible translation. Even the month of her birth in the very first line is translated incorrectly. Google translate is not a mehtod I would recommend to create articles. --Krelnik (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Pollock Twins case might have to go to afd, the sources are not reliable at all (Chris Carter for example is not reliable and the other sources are all fringe books advocating reincarnation. Eleonore Zugun is notable, I will improve this article shortly. I am not sure about the others, the Pollock one is the worst though. HealthyGirl (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pollock Twins case is an absolute disaster, nominated at AfD. Van Meter Visitor and Netta Fornario aren't that good either, I don't know how notable they are, possible AfDs for both of them. All of these articles are terribly written, as shown by the blizzard of tags. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Added another article that the same editor made. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Netta Fornario. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

ThePlatypusofDoom go ahead nominate all articles, but don't notify me on my talk page. Enjoy yourselves. X-Men  XtremE  12:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the editor seems to take offense with being gently reminded of WP:FRINGE, and notified of Articles that were deletion. it is considered good form to notify an editor of an article that they created being nominated at AfD. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 12:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, Krelnick calls you "fringey" because your edits do not comply with WP:FRINGE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, by "fringey" I was refering to the topic and content of your articles. It's a term we use here on this board constantly, I neglected to consider how it might sound to someone coming in here from elsewhere on the site. Sorry. And as for notifying you - my reference to you above obviously pinged you, because you appeared here to respond a mere 3 minutes after I posted. At that point it's up to you to follow the conversation wherever it leads, such as to AfD or elsewhere. --Krelnik (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And this case has exploded into a long, hard, annoying semi-edit war, but I'm trying to avoid edit-warring. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I will entirely re-write the Eleonore Zugun article, I will attempt this in the next few hours. HealthyGirl (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tynong North serial killings, there seems to be a pattern here. HealthyGirl (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * UGH! After repeatedly complaining that we weren't notifying them of stuff, that we were tagging their articles faster than they can fix them, they create another stub? How about fixing the current ones at AfD first? Okay, I don't feel so bad for calling attention to this now. --Krelnik (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * HealthyGirl said that she will improve Eleonore Zugun article. I have done my part. Two of the AFDs will end in delete. So, why should I waste my time improving those articles. The 1937 murder case will survive but some sources are in French and German. If you can read French then improve it. PlatypusofDoom is already warned by other editors. I am not going to make the same mistake of creating articles like Netta Fornario. X-Men   XtremE  05:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor writing these fringey stubby articles seems to be lacking some wp:clue, and ability in english. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As you can now see from the redlinks, an admin this afternoon did a clean sweep and deleted them all under CSD G5. Apparently someone did some digging and decided this user was a sock puppet of a long banned user. The SPI doesn't show how this one was tied in though, so I don't know how that was decided. I guess we can archive this topic.  --Krelnik (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on here. The user has been perm banned but before they were banned started renaming some of the articles:


 * 1937 Laetitia Toureaux murder
 * Murder of Gregory Villemin

HealthyGirl (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)‎


 * You might want to call that to the attention of the admin who banned X-Men so they can G5 delete those too. They probably escaped notice because of the late rename. --Krelnik (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry
The discussion at Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 8 could use some more opinions. It might help to read a thread I started about it at WT:PSYCH a few months ago when I was first trying to make sense of it. —PermStrump ( talk )  05:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomophobia
I am right in thinking this is a crank marketing term that has had the occasional revival after a well-publicised press release, but is basically a WP:ONEEVENT thing centred around the press release, right? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would treat it as a WP:NEOLOGISM. One the one hand, people can have a phobia of literally anything. It's called a specific phobia (in the DSM-5) and it's qualified as 1 of 5 subtypes: animals (spiders, snakes, etc.), natural environment (heights, storms, etc.), Blood/injections/injury (BII), situational (elevators, planes, etc.), or other (literally everything else). So just as an example, if you were evaluated for a fear of spiders, you might be diagnosed with "Specific phobia, animal subtype: spiders" (not arachnophobia) and if you were evaluated and found to actually meet the clinical criteria for a specific phobia caused by being separated from your cell phone, you'd be diagnosed with "specific phobia, other type: separation from cell phone" (not nomophobia). BUT we already have an article on specific phobia and there's also one on separation anxiety disorder, which I imagine might have more in common with nomophobia than an actual specific phobia (though they're closely related anyway and one isn't necessarily more severe than the other). So the real question isn't if it's a recognized condition, because it might be, but there were already official terms and articles for it. So the question is if the term "Nomophobia" is notable enough for an article. See Trypophobia. Nonsense in the sense that it's never going to be in the DSM (which is moving away from difficult to understand Latin and Greek terminology and towards plain, accessible language), but notable enough as an internet phenomenon for its own article.  —PermStrump  ( talk )  04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have liked to vote to delete, but the article, silly as the content may be, isn't WP:ONEEVENT because the references go back to the 2000s. Roches (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on the science of GMOs
There is an RfC at WP:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms which is aiming to arrive at a cross-encyclopedia wording on the question of the scientific consensus on GMO food safety. Some of the considerations may cross into the realm of WP:FRINGE and so might be of interest to watchers of this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Heart is not a pump is plausible and has a scientific basis
At Talk:Anthroposophic medicine claims that "the heart is not a pump" is plausible and has a scientific basis because there is one book of one MD supporting it and one positive review of the book has been published with peer-review.

Here is the review. It should be noted that O'Leary is Furst's co-worker and they co-authored an article on the subject "the heart is not a pump", so support from O'Leary seems a walled garden and does not pass WP:FRIND. Do note that even according to the mentioned review, it is an axiom of medical science that the heart is a pump, so my claim is that "the heart is not a pump" is WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh brother. I thought I'd seen it all, but this takes the dog biscuit. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. You think "How can someone come up with something more crazy and wrong than this", then it happens. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, more Steiner bollox advanced by our chief resident POV-pusher in this area. Exceptional claims needs exceptional sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I knew I'd seen that editor before somewhere. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 19:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * See the discussion on the article page.
 * First of all, Steiner claimed merely that the heart did not act merely as a mechanical pump; that its mechanism was more sophisticated than this.
 * Second of all, I am merely suggesting that the article should not completely deny that there is some scientific thought (Furst presents very extensive sources and research that make it evident that this is not merely his idea) that supports this idea. Springer is not a fringe press, and the The Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia is a respectable peer-reviewed journal. HGilbert (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should just say that there is no mainstream scientific basis for the theory. That is still true, even if you want to bring in such fringe sources, Hgilbert.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 14:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Imho, now Furst's view is fringe. As noted by WP:FLAT any new insight which starts as fringe could become minority view, mainstream view, majority view and consensus view. But according to WP:BALL, Wikipedia is not the place for advancing such speculations. So, there are two problems with using Furst as a source: first is that it is still a fringe, or if you do not like that word, provisional research, which has yet to be recognized as valid by peers. Not everything that passes peer-review is valid, see Why MEDRS?. So, Furst as a source is either fringe or marginal view. The second problem has been noted by, namely that Furst's view does not coincide with Steiner's view. About 's argument, there is a difference between "the heart is not a pump" and "the heart is not wholly a pump" (or "the heart is more than a pump"). I'm not sure that it can be verified that Steiner supported the later, instead of the former. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a problem with works that pass WP:RS with flying colors -- a book published by an academic publisher (Springer) and an article in a fully mainstream medical journal -- being termed "fringe". Fringe would seem to be that which is not accepted into the mainstream. Or, otherwise expressed, by WP standards, the fact that these publishers deem this work mainstream enough to publish makes them WP:RS, not fringe sources. This remains a minority view, of course, and I do not suggest that it should be presented as anything but that.

Since you apparently did not read it there, I copy below my response on the article talk page to the claim that Furst's work does not support Steiner's idea. @Shibbolethink probably had not looked at Furst's actual work when making this claim, as quite large sections of the book (including several whole chapters) are devoted to exactly this.
 * Actually, Furst discusses the capillary circulation in detail from page 13 on. For example, he mentions that De Langen further suggested that “the capillary is like a tiny, incomplete heart, which exerts pressure on the blood passing through it, hereby propelling it and furthering and regulating the filtration,” and that the sum total of the placental capillaries act as a “peripheral heart” which drives the circulation (p. 28; cf. pp. 67ff). Chapter 15 includes a rich discussion of the history of theories of capillary pressure which makes it evident that the idea has been given empirical support by various researchers. On page 176, Furst proposes that the conflicting observation can be resolved only when the blood is assumed not to be an inert fluid “pumped” around the circuit by the heart but a “self-moving” agent with flow directly coupled to the metabolic needs of working muscles. HGilbert (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, peer-review and respectable publishers are not enough. O'Leary seems to think that Furst's theory will in time overthrow the virtually unanimous consensus that the heart is a pump. But, we're not there yet, it remains a speculation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as 'originale investigationis'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view.  But it does not report it as true.  It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing."

- WP:FLAT


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This guy gets it.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

new article on E. Raymond Capt
see my comments at on the talk page about his credentials and some debunking of his credentials at. I've reverted bogus claims twice tonight. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Grin's Report
Apologies if this is not the correct venue. The article François Grin currently consists mainly (in terms of number of words) of discussion of a report advocating the use of Esperanto, a report variously called "the Grin report" or "Grin's report". In 2013 an article at Grin Report was deleted per the discussion Articles for deletion/Grin Report. It was re-created at the same title a few weeks later and then speedily deleted. In 2014 essentially the same article was created at Grin's Report; it was also speedily deleted.

Last month (May 2016) User:Alekso92 added the thrice-deleted content to the biographical article with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fran%C3%A7ois_Grin&diff=next&oldid=720485619 this edit]. Apparently the content exists on Wikia.

The AfD did not contend that the theory is fringe per se, but was unable to find independent sources to establish notability. User:I JethroBT did, however, find two brief mentions of the report in presumed reliable sources. Also, User:DGG suggested prior to the deletion discussion that "Grin Report" be merged to "François Grin", which in effect Alekso92's edit has accomplished.

Currently "François Grin" cites the Grin report itself, as well as a petition and an article about Esperanto, but does not cite any third-party sources describing the report.

My own opinion is that brief mention of the report may be due in the article about its author, but attempts to smuggle back in the same deleted content without establishing its notability or its acceptability (i.e. non-fringe status) among language planning authorities or scholars is inappropriate. Cnilep (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * this discussion belongs on the article talk page. Esperanto is not a fringe subject.  DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Grin's Report is not "Esperanto"; it is an economic analysis of Esperanto versus English or other languages as a European lingua franca. Cnilep (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster
Over at loch ness monster, we've got a user repeatedly edit-warring to present cryptozoology in a positive light. The same user has made various anti-academic statements, including anti-global warming comments elsewhere, so this is hardly a surprise. Still, the article needs more eyes. Cryptozoology creep has long been a problem on Wikipedia and we really need more of a stern effort to relegate it to specific sections of articles per WP:UNDUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with "cryptid". The term may have begun with cryptozoology, but it's useful (and in common use), and I've never understood it to lend any sort of [pseudo]scientific credibility. To call something a cryptid is to immediately remove scientific credibility, not claim it. It's just an animal whose existence is unsupported by science, but has been claimed to exist. I'm quite far from up on the field up cryptozoology, though. What am I missing? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Looked at the talk page. No need to start a parallel thread. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply indicating that I think some cryptozoology material isn't so necessarily pseudoscientific. I have a few pages assembled of shorter lists of articles from various cryptozoology sources, and the material in those sources indicates field in general includes not only the dubious animals like Nessie but also the recent animal discoveries in Vietnam etc. It also includes animals which exist but are "out of place" where found, some of which are probably broadly scientific as well. Unfortunately, I have at least one other prospectus page to finish first, and am going to renew efforts on the Bibliography of encyclopedias pages as well, but the Cryptozoology Prospectus page based on the works I've consulted should be up in a few weeks. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. Cryptozoology is universally dismissed as a pseudoscience. Not only does it fail to bother with the scientific method, earning the ire of biologists it attempts to associate itself with, but it completely disregards the field of folkloristics as a whole. There are no shortage of reliable sources out there simply referring to it as a pseudoscience. There's a huge difference between biologists in the field describing a new species or one that was thought to be extinct and the total lack of methodology of cryptozoologists, for example.


 * Right now, as I've said above, we've got a real mess on our hands all over Wikipedia with cryptozoology stuff, specifically terminology and approach, rampantly violating WP:UNDUE and in many cases outright promoting cryptozoology (despite WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). This is probably because we don't have many users here with a background in folkloristics that regularly edit (the articles are almost always on the topic of folklore, rather than fringe biology stuff), otherwise this stuff would have presumably been swatted long ago. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Of interest
This AfD may be of interest to folks who lurk here: Articles for deletion/Britt Marie Hermes. Montanabw (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Been following it already - there was also an associated item at WP:BLPN that's already been archived here. Seems like the AfD is going to resolve to keep, which I was glad to see. I'm kind of annoyed DGG even opened that AfD. It happened that I noticed that article when it was in draft, so I had it on my watchlist even then.  And DGG himself participated in the AFC process for that article!  The author of the article is a new Wikipedia user, and this is their first article creation.  They were very diligent and brought it up to snuff through several rounds of rejection. So it gets accepted (by, notably, a different editor than DGG) and DGG just comes back and puts an AfD on the thing two weeks later.  It's this type of shit that really sours new editors on contributing to Wikipedia. I know DGG has been around a million years here and has two billion edits or something but cheesuz christ on a cracker, come on. --Krelnik (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Although not quite BITEing, it's close. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This AFD just closed with KEEP, as expected. There seemed to be a consensus that the article still needs some copyediting and other work, though. That seems to be happening. --Krelnik (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian
In response to a comment on the talk page from an editor who couldn't adds category I added it for him. It was "Fictional languages" and almost immediately removed as being a PoV category. A bit odd as that seems the mainstream PoV so seems reasonable. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For anyone else who didn't already know (like me), apparently this was the language on the golden plates with god's message that Joseph Smith found and translated into the Book of Mormon. I don't know about that category I guess. WP:RNPOV gives this example: Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else." But you wouldn't really be able to present both sides with a category, so I'm not sure. —PermStrump  ( talk )  20:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because some consider the language non-fictional and some consider it fictional, I feel the "Fictional language" category is inappropriate. It is properly discussed in the article, but the category is controversial and adds nothing to the article. These kinds of characterizations are common in religious articles and ultimately found to violate WP:NPOV. Bahooka (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * UltimatelY? I see that Creationism is in Category:Pseudoscience. That's a controversial category, will you pop over there and remove it? All pseudoscience has some believers, so do we get rid of the category? Categories are navigational aids and people interested in fictional languages should be able to find this one. Once again, the fact that some people believe in it is irrelevant. There's very little that you won't find some people believing in. Once again this is a mainstream encyclopedia and there's no reason to avoid categories that reflect the mainstream view.  Doug Weller  talk 13:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to state it is a disputed language, then fine, it is. But to state definitively that it is a fictional language along the lines of the Klingon language (which is also in that category), then no, I still think that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Bahooka (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But it isn't disputed, other than by Mormons. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and, as the Reformed Egyptian article states, "No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or a "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief." To make allowance for the Mormon view in the categorization, as if that view had some sort of parity with the mainstream view, would go counter to WP:UNDUE. I do agree the language isn't fictional in the same way as Klingon is, but it's fictional for all that. (And we don't even have a category for Disputed languages, probably for good reasons.) Bishonen &#124; talk 15:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC).
 * The question isn't whether anyone believes it. The question is what the consensus is among the best sources (WP:RS/WP:FRINGE). If what's given in the article is any indication ("From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian"), fictional seems more or less appropriate. &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If no mainstream scholars think it is a real language it is a fictional language in the WP sense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It has to be referred to as fictional by reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, why is Creationism in Category:Pseudoscience, anyway? As the hatnote indicates, the associated pseudoscience is Creation science. The category page says "the article's lead will contain a well-sourced statement that the subject is considered pseudoscience", which is not the case with the Creationism article. StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. "Fictional language" states that "Fictional languages are constructed languages created as part of a fictional setting, for example in books, movies and video games." With respect to Reformed Egyptian, it was not really a "constructed" language in the same way that fictional languages usually are. It is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and there is a very brief parchment of sample text, but there is no constructed grammar or even vocabulary that has been deciphered from what exists. It's not even clear if it is meant to be seen as a new "language", or rather just Egyptian written in a different ("reformed") script. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Category:Pseudohistory and Category:Spurious languages or Category:Linguistic hoaxes might work better, in the absence of a term and category along the lines of "pseudolinguistics." Although Reformed Egyptian is (by any academic standard) fake and its creators ought to have known that, they stuck with the idea it was historical and so have the majority of its students.  They're wrong, Klingon is more historical than Reformed Egyptian by merit of having actual speakers at any point in history -- but works dedicated to studying it wouldn't not be stocked in the fiction section of any library.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Category:Spurious languages is a better fit than Category:Fictional languages. Still not a perfect fit, but much better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that spurious language is a slightly better description. Bahooka (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - more of a general note than a specific vote: We need to be careful about treating matters of religious belief as pseudoscience. We should not be putting Category:Fiction on books of scripture, nor should we put Category:Pseudoscience on Transubstantiation and Ex nihilo even though these unquestionably violate the laws of physics. WP:Pseudoscience and WP:Fringe apply to religious topics only when there are purported scholars/scientists abusing, or pretending to use the scientific method in order to support their beliefs. That's why Creation science is in the Pseudoscience category, but Creation myth is not. As for Reformed Egyptian, I don't know for certain if there has been any abuse of science related to that, but my gut feeling is that its categorization should be consistent with Adamic language. ~Awilley (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Book of Mormon mentions "reformed Egyptian" (capitalized that way) once, saying "none other speak it." So it is, somehow, the language of Lehi and Nephi and his family. There are a couple of examples of "X, being translated, is Y." Place names and personal names are often presumably in reformed Egyptian as well. And there is the Anthon transcript, which might be categorized as an undeciphered writing system, though it might also be categorized as a hoax. Although the argument is over, I wanted to second Awilley's opinion. Deliberate insults to people's belief systems are disrespectful and inappropriate.
 * Articles like this are valuable for believers who want an objective and neutral set of facts about their beliefs. So it does Wikipedia a disservice if Mormon readers come to Reformed Egyptian, find it categorized as fictional, and turn away from the article. If peoplpe's beliefs are respected they will learn and they will think. Roches (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - might "pseudo-history" or "purported langauges" be a more appropriate category than "fictional languages". It surely represents an ahistorical perspective on ancient Egyptian writing. The "historical methods" related to "Reformed Egyptian" are entirely bogus and the belief in this purported language is only attested to by a single, not particularly big religious group. The fact that we give deference to this group's feelings on this matter reflects a US-centric bias in Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Isn't this pretty simple? I mean, what do the experts in the field, the philologists say? Specifically, philologists specializing in historical Semitic linguistics? It's basically the same situation as the various hoax runestones out there (i.e. Kensington Runestone)—well, with a highly influential and powerful religious group defending it. It sounds to me the solution is to add it to a new category, , which should include Adamic language and other languages that exist solely in bodies of myths. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Anthon Transcript
On a related note, the sourcing in this article is quite dubious. —PermStrump ( talk )  23:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Need some eyes
I've been trying to remove the worst sources and unsourced items from List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia and List of reportedly haunted locations in Canada‎ as well as rewording the remaining entries to a NPOV. A SPA completely reverted me on the first and some IPs have re-added some unsourced and poorly sourced items to the second. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify - these articles a full of various alleged ghost stores posted in a way that assumes they are all true. That's clearly not a proper encyclopedic tone and the assumption that ghosts are real is clearly a fringe theory. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just took a look at a random source and found that Fantasmas en la Candelaria looks to have been published... by the Mayor of Bogota's office? And its references section includes citations of deviantart and a Stargate site? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, while I tend not to like redlinks in lists myself, it's not a hard rule that every entry in a list have its own article, and this doesn't necessarily seem like one that that would apply to. In fact, it seems like a sort of list that can serve to hold descriptions of decently sourced examples that wouldn't qualify for their own article. Of course, they shouldn't be presented as true and would need to be well sourced (and I appreciate that at least many of those you removed were not). But if there were some that had decent sources without their own article, they should probably be restored and the language tweaked rather than just removed. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC regarding wording at Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)
FYI: There is a spirited discussion going on in an RFC on the Talk page regarding this intelligent design guy - should the fact that ID is regarded as pseudoscience be mentioned in the lede of this BLP? --Krelnik (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Lemuria (continent)
I've reverted a fringe editor here once, could someone else explain to him about reliable sources and original research so they don't think it's just me? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Future life progression, yep
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just took a look and ended up nominating it for deletion. —PermStrump  ( talk )  16:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Jack_Schwarz
FYI to those who might know more about this guy, Jack Schwarz. He does not seem notable, but the list of books in the article is impressive looking. I detect fringe and promo issues all over. Delta13C (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow that thing is a mess - uncited claims, inconsistent citation style in different sections, ridiculous claims. --Krelnik (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have come across Jack Schwarz being referenced in many books, "The Holographic Universe" being one of them. Those references clearly need some work. Probrooks (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Melanin theory
More eyes will be appreciated: recent editing has been problematic. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted again. Another edit to the page and the user should just be taken to ANV/AN3. I'm not convinced this isn't just trolling. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's a troll, they should be banned for that. If they actually believe what they're posting, they shoud still be banned for being an idiot.50.134.25.41 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the evidence availability all over the project would indicate that being an idiot does not lead to banning. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

GAR input sought
This may be slightly off-topic for this forum, but I've seen the editors who post here to be experienced with the topics of sourcing, neutrality, extraordinary claims, and level of detail in the articles, as well as general Wikipedia policies.

It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.

I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is NOT the board for a re-assessment of the GA military history bio article in question; there is not an issue or question raised which would fix into the subject matter of this board. Kierzek (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'll admit that "fringe theories" seems a bit remote and unrelated to the subject matter, I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with soliciting input from a wider variety of editors, since the article has so far been commented on mainly by editors who write military biographies, which seems to have its own separate standards regarding sourcing and details such as I heave never seen before. From what I have seen, apparently the same editors write and rate these articles. Similarly, I see nothing wrong with mentioning here that editors take a look at Good article reassessment/William L. Uanna/1. While improved since the GAR of that article commenced, there are still questions as to reliable sourcing and unencyclopedic detail. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's relevant for FTN. WP:MILHIST seems to be like a twilight zone of minority views on obscure military history. —PermStrump  ( talk )  16:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with K.e. that the article could use some edits for concision, but must say, with an obtuse post like yours I don't need to write anymore.Kierzek (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * After skimming the article in question, I thought K.e.coffman was doing their best to explain why it's relevant to this noticeboard without POV pushing, despite that if any of us would just be blunt, it might garner some more interest from editors who otherwise think they don't know enough about military history to weigh in. So if those attempts were obtuse, I'm just gonna be blunt... What we're not saying is that this is a GAR for a 10,000+ word essay full of Nazi WP:FANCRUFT that apparently seems to meet the GA criteria of a wikiproject with its own set of rules for what's encyclopedic. —PermStrump  ( talk )  18:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Now this follow-up post of yours carries some thought, to which I can say, okay, fair enough; but for the "Nazi" insertion; if you knew the members of the Military History board involved with the article in question and their work, then you would know that is not applicable, to say the least. AustralianRupert has written some fair minded ideas which should be considered therein. Kierzek (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Information about Nazis is history, not WP:FANCRUFT. This particular leader is someone I have never heard of. He seems to have been passed over by the historians. The article does rely on few sources, but there are only a few English-language sources on this person, and not many more German ones. Some parts of the article, like Strachwitz's rehabilitation program, are perhaps not encyclopedic. But the movements and operations of a divisional commander in World War II are inherently encyclopedic. Removing content from the article would be a disservice because it is not readily available elsewhere. Military history articles on Wikipedia tend to be long, but they tend to be well-written. For example, the article is detailed, but it is consistently detailed, with no undue weight given to a particular stretch of time. So I think the article still qualifies for the "broad" criterion for GA status. Roches (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Élizabeth Teissier
No action required, but just thought readers here would be interested in the dismissal of a lawsuit in France over an astrologer's BLP, covered on the Wikimedia blog here. Also, that same BLP has just been translated to English (here - Élizabeth Teissier) thanks to. --Krelnik (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I was not aware of this case. Delta13C (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext (2nd nomination)
This AFD is related to the Integral theory (Ken Wilber) articles that have come up on this noticeboard recently. nominated EnlightenNext for deletion a few weeks ago and it completely flew under the radar, so just renominated it and I figured I'd mention it here, so the same thing doesn't happen again. —PermStrump ( talk )  23:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been adding many Integral Thought-related articles to WikiProject Alternative Views and nominating some for PROD or deletion along the way - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed and appreciated that. Thanks. :) It feels a little anticlimactic they've been deleted/redirected more or less uncontested. Do you think one day someone is going to realize it and try to recreate all of them? —PermStrump  ( talk )  21:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Jennifer Gidley - David Gerard (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Health Australia Party
is an Australian political party pushing altmed and various conspiracy theories, edited here it seems by a party rep. Some edits pointing-out the bollocksy nature of their beliefs are being reverted; probably could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy
This page needs more watchlisters. It may also benefit from semi-protection, as it's gotten a fair bit of rather bad back-and-forth lately by IPs - you know the sort, one changes it to say homeopathy is not a pseudoscience, and to delete some ccriticism, the next comes along, and, instead of reverting to keep the cites, changes it to remove the POV-pushing, but now it's uncited, etc.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK: Can't say factual things about a person. How about we promote astrology instead?
(Crosspost from WP:ANI)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier

We can't replace a simple, well-cited fact with promotion of astrology. DYK seems to have gone mad. This is not what I expected (or was ready) to see first thing in the morning after a bout of insomnia and jackhammers. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The article needs work and can't be linked on the main page in its current form. Certainly you can't use a pro-fringe hook. I have tagged the article and left a comment on the DYK discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion
Some editors here may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy, about what the best practice is, if an editor removes WP:UNSOURCED material from an article in the belief (whether right or wrong) that the material cannot be verified in a reliable source (aka "WP:CHALLENGEs the material"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Kris Kristofferson
Here's something different for you. In a HuffPo piece Kristofferson is reported to have chronic lyme disease. That piece is commented on by David Gorski here. On the Talk page there is some disagreement about how all this should be reported here. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ideokinesis
Came across this, another of the endless variants of somatic nonsense topics we seem to have. I trimmed some nasty POV and went looking for neutral sources to try and expand it but have drawn something of a blank. Anybody know more? Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources look fringe to me. I too am having trouble finding RS coverage. This may be a candidate for AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Results from HighBeam seem to indicate that it is primarily about teaching dance technique/choreography, however Gale also reports that Some have taken the concept and enhanced it by using visuals of proper movement and having participants watch for several minutes before attempting the movement. This has been used to develop videos that teach sports or dance technique. Sources found at HB: Dance Spirit, Dance Magazine, Dance Teacher, Journal of Dance Medicine & Science, The Gale Encyclopedia of Senior Health: A Guide for Seniors and Their Caregivers, Canadian Encyclopedia.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've found that sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between articles about (A) an accepted dance training technique that's being appropriated by the somatics nonsense vs (B) somatics nonsense trying to sell itself as a concept that was borrowed from an accepted dance training technique. After a cursory search on this one, this seems to fall into category (A). My library's periodicals database found ~103 hits (probably some dups, so a little less), ~34 of which are peer-reviewed (some in journals with more dubious names than others). It's covered (not too favorably) in this 2016 literature review in the Journal of Dance Medicine & Science, which is indexed on medline. So with that and the number of other hits and the stuff Isaidnoway found, it seems like it meets GNG. I'll add some material from this lit review to the article since it's probably the highest quality source on the topic.
 * It seems like "ideokinesis" is basically some entrepreneurs' attempt to brand guided imagery, so I imagine it's the type of thing that wouldn't hurt to have some extra eyes on in general. —PermStrump  ( talk )  19:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing
There has been a lot of activity at the article recently, and I have just done a mini re-write/clean-up which could probably benefit from a check by fringe-savvy editors. There is also an RfC running for this article which may be of interest. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, my re-write got wholesale reverted. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's a big, big mess, with lots of pseudoscience in the talk page. Will need lots of eyes. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Trey Smith
Can someone delete this article? Looks to be pure WP:VANITY as well as a WP:FRINGEBLP.

73.38.255.229 (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This probably should have been posted at WP:BLPN, but I went ahead and started an AFD. —PermStrump  ( talk )  08:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Rational mysticism
Is this a notable concept? I tried looking it up and can't figure out if the sources that use those two words in consecutive order are talking about the same concept as this article since the article is essentially a list in prose form of all of the times the phrase has appeared in writing (they missed at least one from the 1700s). Same question about Neurotheology and the neurotheologist Andrew B. Newberg mentioned in the rational mysticism article. —PermStrump ( talk )  02:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

B. Alan Wallace
An editor has been edit-warring to add the (obviously unsourced) claim that "vacuum state of consciousness" is a "concept originating in Buddhism". A source designates "vacuum state of consciousness" as quantum woo pseudobabble. (Unless we are in a time-travel paradox, the phrase can't come from ancient India.)

Undeterred by requests to read WP:NOR, the editor is also demanding that the perfectly acceptable secondary source be expunged and replaced by primary sources because the secondary source is "wrong". In any case I've made little headway on the talk page, so a third opinion would be appreciated. Manul ~ talk 20:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This might be refferred to WP:BUDDHA. I expect somebody there will be more likely to have relevant specialist knowledge. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

AfD Edward Group (2nd nom.), possibly G4, speedy
Needs more advanced opinions. Obviously fails WP:BIO, and since the guy is a WP:FRINGE careerist, I thought you all should be aware. Delta13C (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a G4, the new text is quite different to the old text - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg
An IP just made a few edits that look like POV pushing to me, I'm at 2RR, could use a hand. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What specifically did you need help with? I scanned the talk page and didn't find anything. Note that I feel strongly about bad science; when scientists use misleading or fraudulent language, the lies are like a rat infestation -- there are far more present than you will ever see. Roches (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Scientific dissident"
(who is suspiciosly promoting Randy Wayne in various places in wikipedia) created a section "scientific dissident" in article dissident. I doubt this section belongs here. "scientific dissident" is a fringe term. google gives less than 500 hits. I suspect it is nothing but a fashionable moniker adopted by fringe scientists. Please comment in talk:Dissident - üser:Altenmann >t 14:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that links to Randy Wayne's Cornell faculty page as his own site, confirming his identity. This is a straightforward case of fringe self-promotion. --Amble (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just read the article, I'm not sure he passes WP:PROF, is he notable enough from the fringe stuff? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If so, only barely from the looks of it. An AfD wouldn't be a bad idea here. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, having 1200 citations for an article, even as second author, means he easily passes WP:PROF. For what it's worth, his h-index is about 19. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the notability tag from Randy Wayne (biologist) - there was a consensus for notability at Articles for deletion/Randy Wayne (biologist). StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And now, just today, a new article was created: scientific dissent. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

A pseudoscientific essay in support of "scientific dissent" was penned here in Wikipedia. I deleted it. 73.38.255.229 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and I reverted you. Don't just delete articles. List them at Articles for deletion and let the community decide whether to delete or retain. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Scientific dissent


The article Scientific dissent has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Poorly sourced personal essay in support of pseudoscience

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 73.38.255.229 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The article has been proposed for a speedy deletion, but I don't see any of the criteria from Criteria for speedy deletion listed. Please add a valid reason for speedy deletion on or list this article at WP:AFD. (I have no opinion as to whether the article should be kept or removed; my only concern is that it be decided by the community, not by 73.38.255.229 alone deciding to remove it.) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Too late. The proposed deletion was rejected. The lesson here is to read and follow the instructions when proposing deletions. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you learn your lesson about reading before posting? 73.38.255.229 (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Now self-reverted—PROD mistaken for CSD—we‘ll see if anyone else disagrees.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The PROD has been removed (again). I have sent the article to AfD. Articles for deletion/Scientific dissent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Technological singularity
- in its present state is transhumanist advocacy with a ton of blog-quality sources, all trying to make out that this purely hypothetical science fiction trope is a real-life thing that is immiment. Someone tried noting in the intro its science-fictional nature and was reverted; I did a rewrite of the intro so it sounds less like a blog article and essayed upon the long task of fixing the sourcing ... I removed a nonexistent unverifiable source, a blog, a seminar talk video equivalent to a self-sourced blog post, three redundant cites to the same IJ Good piece, and toned down some WP:PEACOCK terms ... and that was editing two paragraphs. More eyes would be most welcomed on the task of bringing this article up to Wikipedia scratch. Or saying that my approach is wrong and terrible if you think that. Discussion at Talk:Technological_singularity - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen real scientists (Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking, to be specific) talking about the technological singularity. I've done some reading on it, and while I agree that it's certainly not real concept in science, it's more 'real-life' speculative than 'sci-fi' speculative, if that makes any sense. Still, we don't need our coverage of it reading like it's some inevitable, widely discussed, cataclysmic event coming just as soon as they build a working quantum supercomputer... I'll take a look. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Gujarat Ayurved University
Article requires cleanup. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Article requires more than that. I just deleted two sections that were nothing more than promotional content.142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This institution does not appear to be notable. I tagged it with Notability tag in case someone wants to looks for sources. I've not seen anything terribly convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that consensus typically rules that any real university is notable enough for an article according to the essay WP:Notability (universities), FWIW. I'm not sure GAU is accredited though, but I'm also not really sure how to verify that for schools in India. All of the other schools listed at the bottom of the article under "Universities in Gujarat" have an affiliation with "University Grants Commission (India)" (UGC) listed in their infobox, which seems to be an accreditation agency. This article has a redlink to "Govt. of Gujarat (India)" under affiliation, which seems dubious to me, but I don't know how to check on it. —PermStrump  ( talk )  16:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Macrobiotic diet
Got an IP continually adding fringe stuff about how this diet combats cancer. Could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Watching. That first sentence of the lede: is that accurate, yin and yang of food? That seems odd. Delta13C (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the yin/yang thing is right - odd beliefs behind this diet. Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Watching. I didn't know I should have been matching the yin and yang of my food and cookware this whole time. —PermStrump  ( talk )  16:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * has improved the article. It seems there are different ingredients to the macrobiotic thing: the yin/yang stuff from Asia, a vitalism flavour from Europe, and a spicing of modern organic mumbo jumbo. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it over the next couple months. It will take me a while to familiarize myself with the literature. Delta13C (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Focal infection theory
This article could use some more eyes and some assistance. It needs a complete overhaul. I just started working on it and haven't been reverted yet, but it's the middle of the night in the US and based on the edit history, there seem to be some WP:OWN issues and all of the content additions for the past few years probably violate WP:FRINGE. Here's a clearly worded, reliable source on the topic to get your bearings. —PermStrump ( talk )  07:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

General semantics
Quoting the first paragraph will likely be enough to demonstrate the problem.

General semantics discourages the use of the copula "is" and as such it would be inconsistent to define it intensionally; however, general semantics allows for describing what it does. Thus, it identifies factors of sanity in the scientific breakthroughs achieved in aristotelian systems. Like geometry merging with analysis, analysis merges with general semantics. Polish-American independent scholar Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950) discussed general semantics for the first time in Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, which he published in 1933.

It's written entirely in-universe for what is an extremely fringe idea of language. Here's some other wonderful quotes:

"By making it a 'mental' habit to find and keep one's bearings among the ordered stages, general semantics training seeks to sharpen internal orientation much as a GPS device may sharpen external orientation. Once trained, general semanticists affirm, a person will act, respond, and make decisions more appropriate to any given set of happenings. Although producing saliva constitutes an appropriate response when lemon juice drips onto the tongue, a person has inappropriately identified when an imagined lemon or the word "l–e–m–o–n" triggers a salivation response."

Identification prevents what general semantics seeks to promote: the additional cortical processing experienced as a delay. Korzybski called his remedy for identification "consciousness of abstracting." The term "abstracting" is used ubiquitously in Science and Sanity. Korzybski's use of the term is somewhat unique and requires study to understand his meaning. He discussed the problem of identification in terms of "confusions of orders of abstractions" and "lack of consciousness of abstracting." To be conscious of abstracting is to differentiate among the "levels" described above, levels II-IV being abstractions of level I (whatever level I "is"&mdash;all we really get are abstractions). The techniques Korzybski prescribed to help a person develop consciousness of abstracting he called "extensional devices.

You get the idea. It's written by true believers. Oh, but don't worry: It quotes some of the wonderful things based on it, like Neuro-linguistic programming and Scientology. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is actually a pretty notable fringe thing, but ... needs to be written about from an outside perspective, yes - David Gerard (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * E-prime is only slightly better, by the way. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

November 2015 Paris attacks
It is about where I reverted the WP:FRINGE claim that torture was involved in the November 2015 Paris attacks. See it busted at http://www.snopes.com/france-covered-up-bataclan-victims/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this needs to stay out of the article. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed it as well. The only reason why I left it in was because I was reverted and there is a 1RR restriction on the page. It is definitely FRINGE material and should not be in the article. --Majora (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have argued in the talk page, there is no practical way for four armed men to torture quickly a mass of people (instead of wounding/killing them through gun shots). So the claim is loony and self-refuting. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

GAR & notability discussions of interest to this board
Since both include issues of "Military fancruft" I'm sharing these two discussions with this board.


 * Good article reassessment/Otto Kittel/1


 * Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Additional eyes on these areas would be welcome! K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see why an article about a German is "military fancruft." Fancruft is about things that have no bearing whatsoever on the real world. Even the least successful of the 3,000 or so pilots who flew for the RAF in the summer of 1940 was a real person whose life is a permanent part of human history. Thus, I think the best guideline for notability for World War II victims and combatants is the one used for place names. Every named place on Earth is considered notable. Similarly, every pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain (on both sides), everyone who died at Pearl Harbor and at Auschwitz, and so on -- all those people probably are notable enough for inclusion on a list, if not an article. There are almost certainly independent secondary sources that discuss each of those people, even if they are not currently known to us.


 * The only way this is a WP:FRINGE issue is if one advances a conspiracy theory that the sources are so unreliable that the individuals in the articles didn't exist. I looked over the list of deleted articles on Knight's Cross holders, and the first on the list (Peter Arent) was in fact a person who never did receive the award. But I found photos and primary-source Soldbuch references supporting that the next two (Kalss and Sengbas) did receive the Knight's Cross. It would be fringe, then, to claim that these photos are not Alois Kalss with a Knight's Cross. Roches (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably should not add spam to FT/N, especially as I do not think this thread belongs to this board, but...
 * every pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain (on both sides), everyone who died at Pearl Harbor and at Auschwitz (...) probably [is] notable - huh, you will have to show a guideline for that. "They did something great" is not enough. The guideline I see is WP:LISTPEOPLE and it does not agree with you (even under the assumption that "everyone who died at Auschwitz" means "everyone who died fighting at Auschwitz", unless you are suggesting a list of 1+m people).
 * According to this guideline, every entry in the list needs to be at least "notable for a single event", or that at least so many of them are that we can extend the list to make it complete. This means "notable individually", not that the list topic is notable. The Few is a notable topic; Archie McKellar is notable (or at least plausibly notable) because of his military prowesses; but not every one of The Few is individually notable.
 * Moreover, your definition of "fancruft" is strange. Pop singers today do have bearing on the "real world" - $15b in 2014 - and some of them really are notable, but the most minute details of their lives do not belong to WP. Similarly, major military battles are notable, many of their commanders are notable solely because of that battle, but not all the soldiers who took part in them, and mention of the colors of the socks of the generals is usually not appropriate. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 11:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs here either. And I know the guidelines, although I hate them, and want to emphasize that even WP:GNG is guideline and not a policy. WP:MEMORIAL says not to create articles for dead friends or relatives. I'm not suggesting a complete list of The Few (the less notable of whom would be on lists but not articles) just because they did something great. I'm suggesting that all of those people were mentioned in secondary sources for what they did. Also, I meant everyone who died at Auschwitz, not everyone who died fighting. There is no point in arguing why I think those people are notable.
 * No one is adding mentions of colors of general's socks. We are talking about deleting articles for lack of notability. For musicians, successful ones are notable and unsuccessful ones are not. Roches (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "I'm suggesting that all of those people [every pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain (on both sides)] were mentioned in secondary sources for what they did" appears to be fringe theory, and would suggested include indiscriminate amounts of information into Wikipedia.


 * Regarding "military fancruft", editor Roches's suggestion to keep German High Command propaganda communiques in articles about German WWII military men borders on fancruft and is not based on policies or guidelines that I am aware of. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to reply here but I should. It is not fringe theory to suggest that there are secondary sources discussing all of the pilots who flew in the Battle of Britain. There were only about 3,000 British pilots and I am certain every one of them has been mentioned in a book or newspaper at least a few times. Fringe theory would be something like suggesting that the Earth's magnetic field made England favorable for British aircraft.


 * Not adding indiscriminate information to Wikipedia means that high school drama performances and musicians who self-publish do not get Wikipedia articles. They're interesting on a local scale but not a global scale. The Battle of Britain is a major historical event, and anyone who is interested in the battle might want to read very detailed information about it. Russian Wikipedia has articles for every Hero of the Soviet Union. Every Medal of Honor and Victoria Cross recipient has an English article.


 * The last thing you mentioned was the Wehrmachtbericht (WB). I've read a few dozen of them. I think is a reliable source on some matters, though it certainly contains much propaganda. It has to be corroborated with Allied sources. For Alois Kalss, one of the articles involved here, primary German sources show he was recommended for a Knight's Cross based on his activities at Hill 112 on July 11, 1944. He is said to have destroyed several tanks. Allied sources report heavy fighting at the same Hill 112 on the same day and they report tank battles. We have evidence that the commander of one tank company was Alois Kalss. Clearly, that company had to be commanded by someone, so why dispute the available sources? Roches (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Addition: Why should I have to state a guideline or policy to support inclusion of the Wehrmachtbericht quotes? It is about what is best for the encyclopedia, under WP:IAR. Now, WP:BIASED deals with the reliability of biased sources. So there's one. There is not going to be a policy that specifically says the WB is a reliable source; it meets WP:V, but see also WP:NOTTRUTH or WP:CRYSTALBALL. I want to say again that this is not fancruft. I'm not a Nazi "fan." I just think the stories of medal recipients are worth keeping, regardless of what side they fought for. And a WB excerpt is a summary of the most important events of the individual's entire life. To be fancruft, it would have to be trivial, like the type of motorcycle Josef Mengele was driving when he got into an accident. That's not significant, just as a description of the cars on season 2 episode 4 of some TV show is not significant. But if there were a letter from Himmler congratulating Mengele on what he did at Birkenau, that would be important, even though it would be extremely biased. Roches (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is interested, I collected a few highlights of the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts on my User page: OKW press releases. By my count, 11 editors have supported the removal of this material, including at the NPOV noticeboard and various talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Total Nonsense
This is total nonsense. Can someone delete it?

73.38.255.229 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, we have plenty of articles on nonsense theories. I think this one may be notable nonsense. So I'm far from sure it should be deleted, but it's much too positive, and would benefit from more watchers. (Unfortunately supporters of fringe theories are more likely to be interested in these articles than other editors, as we all know.) A sentence like "The therapy can be considered as alternative medicine as it is not approved by conventional medicine" (my italics) was quite unacceptably mealy-mouthed. I've removed it, inserting "alternative" in the first sentence instead. Note also that the largest claims in the lead section ("Magnetic resonance therapy is carried out internationally in clinical practices and rehabilitation facilities. It is also supported by research establishments, e.g. the Ludwig-Boltzmann Institute in Saalfelden, Austria.") are unsourced. I've put "citation needed" on both sentences, and may remember to remove them if no citations are forthcoming. The body of the article has the same problems, but I have no more time for it just now. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC).
 * The ineffectiveness of this therapy is mentioned in the second sentence of the lead, but no other significant parts of the article are even devoted to it. Furthermore, the section on evidence (which could possibly use a rename, as it gives more credibility than the contents of that section deserve) seems to be making the point that the therapy is mostly effective. The five sources cited in the lead should also be cited elsewhere in the article. For that matter, the last source could also be pruned from the "literature" section. (If I have time, I'll try to get to it.) Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a mess. I removed the second lead paragaph, as it was a WP:PROFRINGE disaster, but it still needs more work. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this needs to go to AFD, or maybe just overwrite it. MRT is a real thing, but it has nothing to do with this: it's about doing surgery etc. during MRI scanning. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In depth article from The Washington Post, and from NIH - Magnetic resonance therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double blind placebo controlled trial.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  23:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Without reading the entirety of both your sources, it seems a little odd to me that the Washington Post would present Jin's claim that "[o]ne hundred percent responded [to the treatment] with very visible change" without any comment at all. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 21:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From the NIH source: "MRT is safe, but not superior to placebo". So it is exactly as safe and exactly as effective as astrology, homeopathy, phrenology, praying to Jibbers Crabst and various spells from the Harry Potter books. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed a section from this article, which described some plausible sounding but irrelivant science stuff. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that bold edit. The section on nuclear magnetic resonance was not altogether wrong, but it doesn't really apply to the article. The possibilities were either bold deletion or point-by-point refutation and it's good that you simply deleted it. Roches (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we are not done here. I'm not qualified to assess the credibility of the medical evidence provided. I suspect that it is of low quality but would appreciate it if more expert eyes could review the sources. I think the article is in violation of WP:MEDRS. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Phantom cat articles
Yesterday I PRODed Phantom cat—"also known as Alien big cats (ABCs)"—because it's an unencyclopedic list of speculation about non-existent animals (aka cryptids). But removed the PROD with the edit summary, "Removing PROD. Well referenced article", which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I didn't PROD it due to lack of references. The article is essentially a list of supposed phantom cat sightings, all purely speculation and therefore, IMO, not encyclopedic. Even if the article talked about phantom cats more generally, I most likely would have PRODed it for being WP:Undue weight as I think phantom cats can easily be covered under the main cryptid article or in the List of cryptids. (I haven't really looked at that list yet, but I have a feeling that a lot of the things on the list shouldn't have an entire article devoted to them, but almost every single one links to its main article.) On a related note, I also PRODed Gippsland phantom cat last night for lack of notability since of its 4 sources, 2 were broken links and the other 2 didn't mention the subject. That PROD was removed by who provided three sources on the talkpage as evidence of notability: This article in the Herald Sun, which WP describes as a tabloid. The 2nd is on oddhistory.com and the 3rd is on australianbigcats.com. None are RS and only the 3rd source uses the phrase "Gippsland phantom cat". Neither article has had any substantive edits for a long time, so I didn't think the PRODs would be controversial, but apparently they were, so I wanted to get input from other editors here before nominating them for AFD. Thoughts? —PermStrump ( talk )  04:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I ended up AFDing Gippsland phantom cat because that one was pretty cut and dry after I looked into it more. Not 100% sure if Phantom cat needs to be nuked or AFDed though, so would still like input about that one. Thanks! —PermStrump  ( talk )  07:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Lack of recent edits does not assure uncontroversial deletion. You need to do WP:BEFORE to establish whether deletion is the obvious and uncontroversial path. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article's title should have been "List of alleged Feline Cryptid sightings" --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Phantom cats are not cryptids. Phantom/alien cats are (usually) big cats in the incorrect habitat. But they are actually existing big cats. The alien refers to alien to the environment - so Puma's in Yorkshire etc. The vast majority of them are hoaxes, unsubstantiated sightings and/or misidentified, with the occasional zoo/private ownership escapee. A sabre-toothed tiger would be a cryptid. A Tiger in North London is not. Just improbable rather than impossible. Even the Gippsland cat which is called a cryptid is allegedly the result of a freed pair of Puma's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, because that's what I thought at first, but then the article was categorized as a crytid. —PermStrump  ( talk )  13:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought that "cryptid" included purported populations of otherwise real animals despite lack of scientific coverage. Like phantom cats or the ivory-billed woodpecker. My introduction to phantom cats was actually a friend of mine who told me about "the mountain lion nuts" in a particular US state not known for being home to mountain lions -- people who attend various local naturalist meetings and ruin the party by insisting on talking to everyone at length about mountain lions nobody's ever seen/documented. That anecdote isn't to say they count as a cryptid, but it make sense to me why they would be lumped together. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Phantom cats is completely mis-titled. Try a simple google search of the term.  I got bored of scrolling through non-related hits. Oh, and there is no RS to support the terminology. DrChrissy (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A Fringe theory
I theorise that Ages Ago will do very well on the Edinburgh Festival Fringe?

Yeah, I just had to get the pun in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

A fringe case of "fringe"
Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex This is a theory claimed to be popular in Russian literature and even in Russian textbooks, but virtually unknown in the West. Google search in English shows either translations of the proponent or comments by Russian authors. I am not saying that Russian scientist are stupid, but such disconnection in today's globalization of science is a red flag to me. I am at a loss what to do with this article, since I see the subject has basically no independent scholarly discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * [This post moved from WT:FRINGE. Manul ~ talk 23:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)]


 * You're right, the theory does not seem to have gained much traction outside of Russia, despite being around since 1965 -- but it does attempt to answer some perfectly valid, fundamental questions, e.g. why are two genders necessary, and what is the precise nature of the difference and its evolutionary significance. There is a substantial bibliography at the end of his book, here -- and another, more concise one on his website, for whatever that is worth.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think gaining widespread acceptance is necessary for inclusion here. It seems to have a fairly broad base in Russia, which I think is enough to have it's own page. That being said, the page should be clear about it's status. It seems to be a legitimate fringe theory, and should be presented as such. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that its acceptance in Russia justifies the article's existence -- but is it fair to label it a fringe theory? It doesn't depart significantly from mainstream views on the subject, because there really aren't any.  It's true that there isn't any significant independent scholarly discussion outside of Russia, but we've already agreed that the Russian discussion is sufficient.  And it doesn't appear to be pseudoscience.  So should we label it as fringe?  I'm asking, not telling.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have always used the term "fringe" as a descriptive, and refuse to use it in the special meaning it has acquired here and in skeptical circles of "pseudo-scientific". For instance, I call this a legitimate fringe theory, just like I call Loop quantum gravity a legitimate fringe theory. I'm not suggesting this is pseudo-science, only that it's not part of the mainstream (and thus, on the 'fringes' of science). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I typed up the last and hit post before realizing I didn't address your question directly. My apologies. While I disagree with the use of the word "fringe", I understand its connotations here. So I would be fine with the word not being used. Also, as I've done above, if it is used, it should be prefixed with "legitimate" to distinguish it's usage here from it's usage elsewhere. But honestly, even that's a little questionable. I think describing the theory's lack of impact is enough, it doesn't need to be explicitly labelled "fringe", legitimate or otherwise. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree! It's a hypothesis on the fringes, but not "fringe", per se.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The definition of fringe in Wikipedia guidelines is a theory that has little acceptance, while in common usage it means a theory that no rational person would accept. So the special theory of relativity was fringe when it was published but mainstream today.  We do necessarily put into an article the term "fringe theory," it is only necessary that we follow the appropriate guidelines.  That requires that we make clear the degree of acceptance it has, but that is true of mainstream theories too.  TFD (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Acupuncture
WP:PROFRINGE edits at Acupuncture. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this unwarranted escalation what passes for discussion on Wikipedia these days? I addded a talk section at Acupuncture before you made your reverts.  Are there any sanctions for people who abuse these resources?  I've been on Wikipedia since 2003 and this is my first edit on any Acupuncture-related page, and this is how I'm treated? Smh. Huangdi (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your inexperience in editing the acupuncture article is clear. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of things:
 * Posting here is not something that any reasonable person would consider an escalation. The very purpose of this page is as a means of conflict resolution, which is quite the opposite thing.
 * When one gets into a content dispute, immediately trying to make it about oneself ("I've been on Wikipedia since 2003 and this is my first edit on any Acupuncture-related page, and this is how I'm treated? Smh.") is extremely counterproductive and can be perceived as rather self-centered and arrogant.
 * Asking if there's any way to punish someone for using one of WPs varied methods of conflict resolution is... Well, frankly it's ridiculous. No, there are no sanctions which can be imposed upon a Wikipedian for making a single posting to this noticeboard. My advice would be for you to stick to discussing the content and try to make a case for your position. If you cannot make a convincing case, then my advice would be for you to drop it and move on. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I'd disagree with this. Posting here is almost always an escalation. TimidGuy (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:SEEKHELP. Posting to a noticeboard is regarded on Wikipedia as part of WP:Dispute resolution. A widened consensus is always a good thing. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand by my statement. If you disagree, then I'd contend you are being unreasonable. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's why: 1) The first and usual place oto engage in discussion or conflict resolution, is the Talk page of that article. After my first edits, and before Tudor Georgescu's, I wrote on the Talk page. 2) Georgescu never engaged in conversation on the talk page, but 3) An arena as unusual or exceptional as this should be used sparingly - in my thousands of contributions I've never seen anything like this - the result (and perhaps desired effect) is potential intimidation of most contributors - which seems to be the *opposite* of the discussion we are trying ostensibly to facilitate. 4) Given the poor (and poor-sport) reaction on the page, I gave up on the earlier edit and made a much lighter edit which again was summarily rejected - no one seems interested in engaging in how to improve the rough and unedited tone of those first four paragraphs. Huangdi (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Context is important. We have a long history of trypanophiles trying to obscure the fact that robust testing shows that it makes no difference where you put the needles, or even whether you insert them at all. Edits that flatter the subject are likely to be rejected because the subhject is, as far as can be ascertained, a religious dogma masquerading as a medical procedure. Guy (Help!) 00:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone going to make an argument for why this was an appropriate removal of sourced content? If not, what are we talking about? The argument for keeping it is that WP:PSCI requires that we keep it. It is written dispassionately and it's well cited, so it doesn't seem like a justified removal to me. —PermStrump ( talk )  04:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a highly problematic removal and it was good for to air the issue here. (In my case I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise as I generally don't follow the acupuncture article since it's such a shit pit). Alexbrn (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You removed well sourced, accurate, important information with the excuse that it was "NPOV". That, in and of itself is a red flag of the "don't bother to argue with this guy because he's agenda driven" sort. You then edit warred it back out at least twice (calling this well sourced, accurage, important information "weaselly") after you were reverted. You compounded this with your response here, where you made it all about yourself and speculated about punishing someone for trying to get outside opinions. Finally, you just lied to me directly by claiming Tgeorgescu never responded on talk (he did, and you then responded to him so I know you were lying and not simply ignorant of his response), when the record shows that it was he who invited you to talk with one of his edit summaries. Honestly, I think you're completely in the wrong and have no leg to stand on in any aspect of this issue. You seem to be engaged in blatant WP:NPOV pushing in this article and I'd advise you to stop immediately before you fall prey to those discretionary sanctions you've already been warned about. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

John A. McDougall‎, again
Inventor of a fad diet promising poorly-evidenced health benefits. The article is under constant assault (often from IPs); could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

FT/N a forum for canvassing?
Related (at least) to the above postings on acupuncture, editors here should be aware of this contribution on Jimbo's Talk page which alleges FT/N postings are being used to WP:CANVASS. More eyes welcome ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Canvassing about a discussion on canvassing. TimidGuy (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're so meta.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad I wasn't the only one to notice that. I wasn't going to say anything, though. Gotta protect the cabal at all costs, don't ya know. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  19:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait, wasn't this supposed to be on the secret fringe theories noticeboard, not this one? -Roxy the dog™ eyes 20:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, this isn't the secret FT/N? Oh noes!!!111!!1!1oneoneone MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We'd better stop posting now. I'll see you guys at the Lodge at midnight, okay ... ? We can revise our master plan then ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On a related note, did you folks get your big pharma shill cheques this month? I called big pharma and they said mine was 'in the mail' but it still hasn't shown up.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was told the black helicopter is having engine trouble. But they would say that, wouldn't they? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean we aren't out to get you. - Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Transhumanism
- there is a debate on the talk page about whether fringe science is a suitable see also, whether there should be a hatnote for posthumanism and how to cover the Mormon Transhumanist Association. has asked for more eyes and I concur, so mentioning it here - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Welp, I consider myself a transhumanist and I know others who would say the same. That shows that I'm biased, but it also shows that transhumanism is a thing, a noteworthy thing at that, and a noteworthy thing that is well-subscribed by some considerable number of enthusiastic people. Nevertheless, I would certainly agree that association with the movement is generally considered damaging to one's reputation because the ideas are antithetical to current cultural norms, but only some transhumanist assumptions about the future can justifiably be considered "fringe" e.g. cryonics, uploading; mainstream opinion is that cryonics is pseudoscience on par with UFOs (worse: it's perceived as a financial scam intended to dupe dying people), while uploading is perhaps slightly more charitably viewed. This recent Pew poll is unambiguous evidence that the public takes transhumanist ideas very seriously . To be transhumanist is merely to believe that the enhancements listed in the Pew poll are good and desirable and to advocate for their development and use. That's "fringe" only insofar as it is a policy perspective opposed to the current (apparent) majority opinion. Just to be clear, I think it's totally appropriate to point out those particular beliefs which are considered pseudoscience (as in the lead for cryonics), but transhumanism *per se* cannot be said to be "fringe" in the way intended by this noticeboard since it is essentially the mere belief and advocacy that human enhancement is desirable. Since most Americans believe these enhancements are coming, and organizations like Pew believe this is worth discussing, then clearly this is not "fringe science" or pseudoscience. Frankly, the claim that transhumanism is *itself* pseudoscience is used as a way to delegitimize the viewpoints of transhumanists so as to shut down discussion. Believing that we should microchip our children the way we do so with dogs may be odious to some people, but that opinion is not, in and of itself, "fringe science." Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt
Can someone else have a go counselling this new editor? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What else to say, that hasn't been said? He appears to have stopped, at least for the nonce.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Electron internal structure
Came across this article when it was advertised in Youtube comments by the same individual who created it | (scroll down for linked comment here). Appears to have been created and maintained by a single editor (the guy who made the Youtube comment) for sole purpose of promoting fringe viewpoint of a somebody named John Williamson, with 4 out of 6 references being primary sources; Williamson's own published work (including a preprint). As far as I can tell, Google search turns up nothing on this particular John Williamson, which makes this article especially inappropriate given that he is mentioned alongside Einstein, Dirac, and Feynman while simultaneously awarded the lion's share of the content. This should be deleted. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already been prodded, and I've watched it. If it's not deleted per the prod, I'll nominate it at AfD. It's pure crankery. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Worse than crankery, it's gibberish. Can't we just nuke it on general principle?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ... from orbit, it's the safest way. -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the only way to be sure. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've posted a rather long (but quite polite) message at the talk page of the user who has been editing that article. Hopefully, I can help him understand why this article needs to go. One thing I'm rather sure of is that this guy is really new here, and doesn't know what he's doing. His only interactions with the rest of us so far have been through warning templates. If we AGF at his next few breaches of protocol and make a point of communicating directly with him from now on, it might go a long way towards helping him turn into a valuable contributor. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In looking into this further, I think what we have here is a case of "legitimate" fringe science being treated as mainstream science. The works cited appear to be on a level with loop quantum gravity in terms of rigor, though there aren't nearly as many scientists working on it. To be sure: this is not a mainstream view. That being said, the only pseudoscience seems to come into play when the editor writing the page lets his own voice creep in (which is, admittedly, quite a lot). Also, I still haven't dug fully into this, I've only looked up the authors cited and read some abstracts. There might yet be more to this. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Harold E. Puthoff
Needs a thorough going over in light of FRINGE. For one, Puthoff's fringe viewpoints are being given weight over mainstream scientific viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Cupping! it works! just look at Phelps!
Ya'll might want to be aware of this. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/08/08/88385924/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Correlation does not imply causation. clpo13(talk) 21:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well when I read this earlier today, I suspected it would cause issues... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They say the round bruises are from cupping, but can we really rule out attacks by giant squid? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this is an issue affecting the health of human beings, I'm going to need to see some recent, published review articles saying that this was not the result of a squid attack. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Octopus. Given the circumference of the marks, it would have to be a giant squid, and if it was a giant squid - their suckers are lined with larger than usual teeth, so those swimmers would be bleeding all over. Clearly the work of an enraged octopus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you've convincingly ruled out the salt vampire from Star Trek.... - Nunh-huh 23:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's actually simple enough. All we need to do is test for the presence o-
 * Actually, that test is inaccurate and I never should have suggested it. But it doesn't matter because it definitely wasn't the salt vampire. Kirk killed the last of us them. Now please excuse me, I've discovered this wonderful town I just have to take a trip to... MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I know it well... from the Book of Mormon... Sal Tlay Ka Siti. A village in Ooh-tah. Where the goat meat is plentiful, and flies don't bite your eyeballs. - Nunh-huh 00:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Bunch of silly people -- obviously it was a kracken; don't any of you watch Geico commercials? Or a really aggressive girlfriend.  Whatever; given his results last night, everybody will have 'em tonight, I reckon...  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Definitely the Kraken. Definitely not salt vampires. I'm an expert on these things, you know. Just look at my user name. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I hear if you put KT tape over those cup lesions you actually go back in time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only in the sense that your wallet now contains the amount of money you had 2 weeks ago. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Could someone pass me the Dried frog pills. -Roxy the dog™ bark 00:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Save one for me, please -- I've gone a bit Bursar myself ... DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is some nightmare fuel for you: Vampire squid. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. It's just another anim-nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope... MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. Vampire squid are a pain in the neck.   Meet my favorite cephalopod, the Dumbo Octopus.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Cupping therapy
Edit war raging on cupping therapy. Notable sources are being systematically removed from a couple of IP addressed that have never edited Wikipedia before and seem to be here for a single purpose: maintaining a particular POV on this single topic. Help requested on how to solve this conflict, please. It is getting out of hand. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've watched the page. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Someone just deleted a bunch of sourced content in lede, and wrote, "spending more than half the WP:LEAD criticizing the subject is *not* balanced writing." It is if sources support the criticism, yes?  Anyone object to reverting that deletion of sourced material?  Just checking before I do it.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The lede should definitely make clear the cupping is nonsense on toast, but OTOH it has been a bit overblown and makes it look like the case is a bit desperate with over-criticism. I think it could be more succinct and be stronger. Alexbrn (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summary of the article. If the lede is overly bloated with criticism (when the article itself is not) then yes, it looks unbalanced. A brief summary should be in the lede with the bulk of the material expanded on and integrated into the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've had a go at something terser. Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well done. No doubt we've all noticed that this article's page views have jumped 100-fold, literally, over last 2 days. So it will be a headache for awhile -- at least until Phelps finishes up and goes home.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  11:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 100-fold, literally? You must be joking, that is imposs... Oops. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 11:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh well, didn't last long - we've now gone to something non-grammatical backed by a silly Chinese article in PLoS One (a slightly suspect journal I would avoid). Alexbrn (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a mess. It's sad how many Fringe topics get recognition. ThePlatypusofDoom&#39;s Sock (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Article alerts
I follow WikiProject Alternative Views/Article alerts which includes many fringe topics (and you should too). What other article alerts do editors here follow and recommend as FTN-relevant? - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unlike all the scriptkiddies round here, with huge ... computer skillz, I don't follow any article alerts, until now. Are there others? Even the most obvious ones would be useful. Thx. -Roxy the dog™ bark 18:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'm interested in other responses too. I've been following alt views since David Gerard mentioned it in a reply to one of my comments here a few weeks ago. I didn't really know alerts existed before that, so I started following WP:WikiProject Psychology/Article alerts too, because that's my field of work, but it seems like that stuff is almost always relevant to FTN, especially the AFDs, which seems to be mostly what comes up, so FWIW. —PermStrump  ( talk )  19:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And to round out the fringe menu, there's WikiProject_Paranormal/Article_alerts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had never encountered this bot or feature. Thanks for pointing it out. I watchlisted several of the above as well as WikiProject_Skepticism/Article_alerts. --Krelnik (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ETA: There's a complete list of Wikiprojects that use that bot with links to their article alert page (which can be renamed from the default) here: Article_alerts/Subscription_list --Krelnik (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ajamu Baraka
A request for comment (RfC) is ongoing at Talk:Ajamu Baraka. The issue is whether the article should include a quotation from Politico magazine indicating that article subject "has a long history of fringe statements and beliefs." Comments by interested editors are welcome. Neutralitytalk 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You've been recruiting people all over the place to come join you on that page. Your methodology is very interesting.  I appreciate you showing me around wikipedia by your edits, sir!  SashiRolls (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is actually using this noticeboard correctly.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Larry Sanger
This article has always had issues with promotionalism. The section on Citizendium is particularly bad, though I've tried to fix it a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This may be just me, but I find it hard to see how the promotionalism in that article needs treatment on this particular noticeboard. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 18:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tangential - after the academics left, various fringe-to-crank proponents swooped in - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that, but this venue is for topics that are, well, fringe theories (and related pages); it doesn't seem to me that Sanger is heavily involved in such topics. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 03:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Electron internal structure again
I tried to help this guy, but he stopped responding. He's contested the prod, and after giving the page a thorough reading, I couldn't not nominate it at AfD. You can find the entry here. Just remember to use kid gloves with this guy, he's obviously in over his head here already, having troubles with copyright on images, talk page guidelines and more than a few other things we expect folks to know. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  16:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:People accused of pseudoscience
Before adding the cat to any page make sure the subject has been accused of promoting pseudoscience. For example, the body of the article must state something like "In 2010, Shermer said that Chopra is "the very definition of what we mean by pseudoscience".[114]" or "Hari has been criticized by scientists and others for promoting pseudoscience.[14][15][62]"

You can cut and paste this:

Happy editing, QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The cat was nominated for deletion. See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_12. QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a very good category (and it's not grammatical). Applying WP:FRINGE requires more nuance than slapping on labels like this. Alexbrn (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors recommended to rename the cat. If you have any suggestions we can create a new cat. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 07:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Biocentric nonsense
Much nonsense about this idea which seems to be advertised heavily around the internet. 73.38.255.229 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the former could use a "criticisms" section. Also, the lead says it is a "concept," which I don't think is the best way of describing it. It's a weird kind of new-age philosophical ideology, and should be described as such (though not using those exact words). The latter seems fine to me, unless there's notable criticism of his other work of which I'm not aware. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The stem-cell research is the sort of work that doesn't get criticized. There is something about the biographical article which I can't really place (and perhaps it is best not to try). Perhaps it doesn't need a full list of publications. I'm inclined to say I'm not sure why it mentions the fact that Obama, Craig Venter and Lanza were on the same list of influential people, but I'm afraid that I am sure.


 * The biocentric universe thing is criticized by a number of blogs, but I couldn't find anything with more weight than a blog. This 2009 article is a physicist's critical view of biocentrism and this 2013 skepticblog entry is more accessible. Whether these are sufficiently reliable sources to be included in the article is uncertain. Roches (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Skepticblog entry should be good enough to use; it's written by Steven Novella, whom it would be very difficult to argue is not a relevant expert. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You know better than that, MP. The woosters always find a way. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sadly. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where there is a woo, there is a way... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hoklo American, Hakka American and Fuzhou Americans

 * - at AfD
 * - at AfD

I encountered 2 of the articles at AfD. For a bit of background Hakka people are sub group of Han Chinese people and so are Hoklo people. As such, these are technically under Chinese Americans. This specific categorisation appears to be a fringe classification of identity to me. I have never heard of this previously (almost nothing in scholarly sources) and lots of the statements in the article are a bunch of OR and SYNTH and plain unverified. I am posting it here so that other editors can have a look as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Does this really belong on the fringe theories noticeboard? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Fringe phobias
I've just put leukophobia up for deletion because, as far as I can tell, it's just something someone made up. There were a couple of RFDs which deleted a huge swathe of redirects, ostensibly because articles ought to be written instead. I'm wondering just how much of the -phobias we have have any kind of medical literature behind them. Mangoe (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Do the DSM-IV codes contain a list? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If a patient presented with this, it would be considered specific phobia. In a perfect world, much of this comically extensive list of phobias could probably be eliminated with a redirect to specific phobia. For what it's worth, I'd guess that traditional perceptions of phobias as well as popular interpretations of mental illness generally (including and perhaps especially psychotherapy) are inextricably intertwined with pseudoscience. Murky stuff. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not in my copy of DSM, and the only place I could find a definition was in the Urban Dictionary, suggesting that it's more of a "pop" diagnosis than a real one. One of the cited sources (a blog, I think) goes on to describe fear of other colors -- yellow, purple, black, etc.  I don't think we want to open that can of worms.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The very thought of the colour of those worms makes me squirm. Ugh. **shivers** -Roxy the dog™ bark 23:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Colour Out of Space, of course. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of this people already said in this thread, but I'm quoting myself from Talk:Trypophobia ("phobia" of clusters of little holes or bumps), because it basically applies to all of the made-up terms that fall under the DSM diagnosis of "specific phobia, other type"... According to the DSM-5, these are the subtypes of specific phobias: For example, a clinician would write the diagnosis as "specific phobia, animal (dogs)" or "specific phobia, B-I-I (needles)" or "specific phobia, other (clusters of little holes)", not "other (trypophobia)" (or anything else involving the word "trypophobia", because no one else who read it would have any idea what you were talking about). The fancy Greek/Latin terms are "pop" diagnoses like said and will probably never be in the DSM, because the trend, at least for now, is to move away from using obscure Latin and Greek words in favor of less ambiguous terms (e.g., Trichotillomania → hairpulling disorder). BUT that's not to say that believing someone could have a fear of lots of little holes in one place (or a fear of anything else for that matter) is a fringe concept, because people can have a specific phobia of literally anything and one of the criteria for a phobia diagnosis is that the fear is irrational, so they will always sound... irrational. (That doesn't mean the people self-diagnosing on the internet are right about themselves having it, but that's a completely separate issue.) So when these things come up, and they seem to come up a lot (see also nomophobia—fear of being separated from your smartphone/internet access), IMO, we should look at them as a WP:NEOLOGISMs and if the term doesn't meet the notability criteria for neologisms, then it shouldn't get its own article and in most cases would probably be undue weight to even mention in the body of Specific phobia, but I guess that would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. —PermStrump ( talk )  04:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Animal (e.g., spiders, insects, dogs).
 * Natural environment (e.g., heights, storms, water).
 * Blood-injection-injury (e.g., needles, invasive medical procedures).
 * Situational (e.g., airplanes, elevators, enclosed places).
 * Other (e.g., situations that may lead to choking or vomiting; in children, e.g., loud sounds or costumed characters)


 * I think, as you suggest - Lovecraft references notwithstanding - that this is more of a notability issue than anything else. Yes, there are probably people who really do have an irrational fear of a certain color -- or their underwear, or elevator buttons (like Jack Weston's character in The Four Seasons) -- but how many such people are there?  And are those legitimate phobias, or just components of OCD, or something else?  Ask 10 shrinks, you'll probably get 11 answers.  Unfortunately it is, in all likelihood, a case-by-case thing, as you said.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  08:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A problem I've noticed with some -phobia articles is that they conflate a psychological disorder subject with a cultural phenomenon subject. Two that I took to AfD last year were Androphobia (an abnormal fear of men (a phobia) or a term that basically means misandry) and Hoplophobia (an abnormal fear of guns (a phobia) or a neologism coined by a gun rights activist for political purposes). Hoplophobia proved controversial (go figure) and was not deleted (*grumble*), but the AfD was, to me, illustrative of this challenge. With trypophobia, at least there's less confusion -- it was a cultural phenomenon, gaining attention via the Internet, at which point psychologists commented on it and said meh, revulsion, priming, and conditioning, and stuff. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. When they end up being notable as neologisms, most/all of the time they need to be re-written to sound less like a medical article and more like an article on a cultural phenomenon. —PermStrump  ( talk )  18:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a point to going through these and weeding them out, and getting rid of the list? A cursory look shows that that probably most of them are sourced/paraphrased from the same website/blog. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been nominating these or de-categorizing the various social "phobias". If anyone wants in on the fun... Mangoe (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Orion correlation theory
Is this the right name for this page? I think both the word "correlation" and the word "theory" gives the idea more credence than it deserves.

jps (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich
Just FYI for those interested in conspiracy theories. A brand new account appears and creates this article about a Hillary Clinton staffer who was shot to death in July. Seems only notable on the theory that he's Wikileaks' source for the leaked DNC emails (and presumably was killed for this). But of course there's no RS to support that claim. Mysterious new account that created the article and is guarding it also mysteriously knows how to propose a DYK, which of course is not going over well with the DYK people. Article already listed at AfD, which is attracting lots of activity for some reason. --Krelnik (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly not a brand new user behind that brand new account. If anybody is topic banned from Merkian Politics, stay well clear. I've been reading that lot, and for me, article needs to be merged into something bigger, as a one line "hillary said" addition. but what do I know? -Roxy the dog™ bark 22:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to make the same comment - clearly not a "brand new" editor. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * for some reason? Possibly because it is notable, reported all over by politically correct main stream media and little guys who don't care a thing about being PC. Possibly it gets a lot of attention because certain people feel that their political cause is threatened by this information. Their claim of non-notable is quite notable & adds to the article's notability. The method of attacking the article is to add in a gratuitous claim (which does not negate notability, namely the repetition of the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article says nothing about any conspiracy.  (PeacePeace (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC))

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016
Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 was recently created. As far as I can tell, it doesn't use sources about a subject "Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016", but rather a compilation of sources about individual conspiracy theories. My inclination is to send it to AfD, but it looks like a good amount of work has gone into it, and perhaps there's an argument for it to serve as a place to spin out sections of various other articles where these conspiracy theories might presently be living? (i.e. instead of having a pretty well sourced conspiracy theory in a campaign article). That approaches a textbook WP:COATRACK, and would still require sources about the broader topic, though. Posting here to get more opinions. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It does seem notable, though. I wouldn't AfD it, as the topic is notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Individual examples could be said to be notable, but the actual topic purporting to unite them? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 00:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's the thing, don't we need some source to tie them together? Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The topic is not notable and should be deleted. One problem with it is labeling something a conspiracy theory without expert opinion saying it is, and of course it raises BLP problems since actual individuals are named as proponents of conspiracy theories.  In popular writing any speculation that has not been proved is often described as a conspiracy theory, but in serious literature it is used to refer to theories that are at odds with known facts and assumes conspirators who have superhuman ability and are absolutely evil.  These stories are better classified as unfounded rumors.  TFD (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As mentioned at WP:CSC, stand alone lists of certain things (such as conspiracy theories) that aren't notable enough to have their own articles are appropriate. That article can thus work if it's a standalone list. That's for notability and synthesis concerns though, verifiability and undue weight being given to conspiracy theories are another kettle of problems altogether. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * CSC most certainly does not do that. It does say "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles", but it does not say "If you have a bunch of things that seem related to you, come up with a topic name and put them all together". In other words, I don't think anybody's questioning whether a list such as this can include non-notable items. The problem is WP:SYNTH, and it's certainly not assuaged by CSC. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it generally does do that - provided the list content is well defined. 'A bunch of things that seem related' would not be a well defined list. A list containing only reliably sourced conspiracy theories related to one election is quite a narrowly defined list - and far from being 'a bunch of stuff'. I have not looked at the article in detail yet, but if synth is being used to relate the content to each other, then yes I agree it should probably not be there. But it doesnt appear to be the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still disagree. The thing tying them together is, what, that there's a source for each which uses the term "conspiracy theory"? Except when used in a scholarly context, that's far from a precise term, so yes, it's still a "bunch of stuff". There's no subject here until we have sources about the broader subject conspiracy theories (plural) of this election. It's not like making an article about a genus by gathering articles about species in that genus, or making a list of deaths in a particular year -- those are well defined concepts for which there are many sources that make it very very easy to determine what belongs. In this case we're talking about various narratives characterized individually as conspiracy theories, but one or multiple sources. Even if it were appropriately named along those lines (not pretending that there's a real subject that's simply "conspiracy theories of the 2016 election", it still wouldn't have the sources sufficiently tying them together to show notability of the broader subject. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * One day, we should certainly have this article. However, I have seriously grave doubts about whether that day is today, considering that the election season isn't even over yet. There's still time for the 'flavor' of conspiracy theories to change (consider CSs surrounding Trump: They started with being about how secretly racist he is, and now they're all about how he's a Russian Intelligence puppet. That's a YUUUUUGE shift in style, meaning and tone). We need sources writing about them as a whole, as well as sources discussing them in the context of folklore and psychology. Right now, the main feature being discussed is their truthfullness (which is generally absent), by fact checking sites. WP is not a fact checking site, so we lack the material to do an encyclopedic article right. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the bigger benefit of waiting is that after the election, we might actually have some sources looking back, treating these conspiracy theories as a group so as to justify grouping them together. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, I was just trying to point out that this isn't just for policy reasons: we'd have a better article for it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we are on the topic of 2016 election theories, folks here may be interested in Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant theory and my note there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess it was inevitable: Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 22:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientific dissent
Articles for deletion/Scientific dissent (2nd nomination)

Since one of my creationist wikistalkers is needling me by reverting a redirect, I thought I'd let you all know about this situation.

jps (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Poly-MVA
Found a BLP on Merrill Garnett that looked like this. Given the poor/non-existent sourcing on the guy, but the fact that the supplement he created, Poly-MVA, has some coverage I have boldly gutted this and moved the page to be a stub about the supplement, which is promoted as a treatment for cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases. The article may need watching and expansion would be good. I'll add more from the American Cancer Society source, but are there others? Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And now this has been nominated for deletion (wrongly, in my view). This stuff also seems to go by the names PolyMVA, Polydox, LAPd, Lipoic acid-palladium complex and Palladium-alpha-lipoic acid complex! Alexbrn (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories
Editor adding material already in the article about chicken bones (and the original text in the article uses a later source which suggests the earlier research was wrong) and skulls in Chile, mixed citation styles, references that don't link to any text, personal commentary, etc. The Matisoo-Smith material is already briefly mentioned in the article in the "Similarity of features and genetics" section but needs enhancement, but not repetition. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Watched and reverted once already. I did look at the edits before hitting revert, and I agree that these are not good edits. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the word "theories" correct for this title? It seems that we are using this a lot to indicate ideas of dubious provenance, which I find troubling. It confuses many casual readers. jps (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the "theories" here are plausible, particularly the theory of Polynesian contact. If they made it to Hawaii and Easter Island, there is nothing bizarre about the idea that they made it to the American continents. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess, for me, that's what makes it all the more frustrating. It encourages the mixing of the plausible with the implausible. Alas, this might just be a right great wrongs situation. Thanks for indulging my complaints, though. jps (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The word "theories" should be removed from the page title. Aside from the problematic ambiguity of the word, the article includes the Norse expeditions to North America which are established fact and not "theories" (in the colloquial sense). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, but the prose should make it more clear what is verifiable fact (Vikings) plausible theory (Polynesian) and implausible... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)