Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 58

Australian Measles Control Campaign
The Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network (AVN) is a deceptive anti-vaccination group that has been ordered to change its name, include disclaimers on its website, and has been stripped of nonprofit status, due to its publication of misleading information about vaccines. In the article, I believe it is inappropriate to cite AVN's demonstrably false claims from their own website, even though we do so primarily in order to say they are wrong. A claim that is significant will be reported in reliable independent secondary sources and can be cited from there. A claim that is not covered by reliable independent secondary sources, is almost certainly not significant, and using an unreliable primary source solely so that we can cover how wrong that source is, seems to me to be a rather fundamental failure of Wikipedia principles.


 * There is a discussion at Talk:Australian Measles Control Campaign the talk page of whether it is WP:UNDUE to include criticism of the campaign by an anti-vaxx group, with the only source being said anti-vaxxers. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As edit warring on the article page seems to be an ongoing issue, here is the page prior to recent deletion of the section under discussion. The key element of relevance to the page is the public statement made by a Federal Health Minister about attempts to undermine this vaccination campaign. The citation to data were only used to legitimately substantiate false data - and show true government outcomes - presented in two columns in a wikitable. To resolve any dispute, I have proposed that the datatable could be removed entirely (although it seems a bit of a shame, as the contrast is huge), but that the Health Minister's statement of intervention should remain as germaine to the article. The key goal is to ensure completeness and WP:NEUTRAL without straying into WP:UNDUE. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. And in particular, avoiding false balance. So what's going on here is that in order to provide a table showing just how wrong these crackpots are, when no reality-based source covered their crackpot claims, we are using the crackpots' own website as a source. Hence the question: does inclusion of claims made only by crackpots on their own website, and not available from any reliable source, give undue weight tot he crackpots by implicitly asserting the significance of something which no reliable source thought significant enough to even address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 11:38, October 17, 2017‎
 * The other problem is that the "controversy" is almost 20 years old at this point. It is not a current debate, so including the OR table is not in any way relevant, timely, or necessary for understanding the subject nor objections to it.  Removing the table and the sentence immediately preceding still leaves the facts stated of opposition, non-credible claims of negative effects, and the official response.  That's all that's needed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the table. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But you left the unreliable source in place, even though it is now entirely superfluous since the remaining claim is covered in the reliable source we do cite. So, why are you so insistent on retaining the crackpot website as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 19:36, October 17, 2017‎
 * The AVN source is unreliable for what the science is but it is a reliable source for the claims the AVN made. Context matters. To draw an analogy, Nigel Farage isn't a reliable source on immigrants to the UK, but his party's website is a reliable source for what Nigal Farage says about immigrants to the UK.  The same principle applies here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. AVN is being cited to provide “balance” to the mainstream perspective. The reliable sources already describe the AVN claims that remain in the article, the AVN cite serves no purpose other than to give the most flattering view of their insane claims. There is no policy requiring us to cite th3 original propaganda, and several well established principles pointing th3 other way. Do not cite anti-vaccine propagandists as a source for anti-vaccine propaganda. This is rather obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.130.70 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Obvious to who? What source do you propose to replace the AVN source with? I am fine with using a different source, but am unaware of one. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote from Wooldridge is: "I am deeply concerned that media organisations risk giving credibility to the crackpot views of the AVN by publishing, without question, their untrue and deceitful claims". There are two possibilities. The first is that this refers to the AVN's specific claim as outlined in this section, in whihc case the media clearly covered it and we can use one of those reliable sources. The other is that it refers to some other incident, and, like the table, this section is WP:OR. We can tell which is true by simply looking for media sources that repeat AVN's "bullying" claim. If none exist, it's UNDUE and OR. If they do exist, they get used instead. There is no policy-compliant scenario where we cite these mad propagandists as the source for their mad propaganda. 82.21.88.44 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be good to have better sourcing, the source for Wooldridge's statmente gives me a 404, should the whole section be removed as OR until we find better sources? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all undue, because it has virtually no coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Wooldridge is primary but reliable, AVN is primary and utterly unreliable.
 * I removed the criticism section as the sourcing was poor, if anyone can find better sources, please restore the section with the improved sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina
It's about time we revisit this nonsense. WP:FLASHINTHEPAN, quite obviously (not so obvious last decade when the article was subject to a lot of argument). However, the stale article now reads like a weird snapshot of a media circus. Better sourcing, less sensationalism, etc. would be nice. jps (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Might want to get some of the MEDRS experts in there. They could do a lot of cleanup. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Death of Savita Halappanavar

 * This matter, to boil it down for you, of the TL:DR kind. Is simply a case of WP:RSMEDs superseding WP:RS. On that point, please give your 2 cents on the talk page.
 * This matter, to boil it down for you, of the TL:DR kind. Is simply a case of WP:RSMEDs superseding WP:RS. On that point, please give your 2 cents on the talk page.


 * Specifically on the matter of how WP:RSMED rightly states. "If no high quality source exists for a controversial statement it is best to leave it out; this is not bias."

As discussed in greater depth on the talk page of this article. There is a widespread Fringe theory, an example of medical WP:QUACKERY that continues to be insinuated and promulgated by some in the media and political sphere, often by use of weasel wording, that this individual's death from sepsis, was somehow related to Irish laws on abortion or "denial of abortion". A classic example being, how the introduction of this wikipedia article reads. "Savita died...after being denied an abortion".

Not a single WP:RSMED state that "denial of abortion" played the least bit of a role in her death. Yet, this wikipedia article presents the loaded insination in the lede that. "Savita died...after being denied an abortion".

When WP:RSMED emphatically states "If no high quality source exists for a controversial statement it is best to leave it out; this is not bias."

A grand total of, none, zero, of the WP:RSMEDs mention this politically charged red-herring, neither | the Patient Safety Investigation Report published by Health Information and Quality Authority (Savita Halappanavar or the HSE report, nor the controversially "hand-picked" & apparently "pro-choice" Arkulaman report. None of them support this WP:FRINGE narrative of "denial of abortion" as potentially life-saving. Zero. Yet from how this wikipedia article is written, you are intentionally massaged into thinking it was. Despite all the medical evidence being to the contrary.

In fact, while it is always impossible to prove a negative. We even have the illuminating situation were other WP:RSMEDs, the opinions of a disparate array of the most authoritative medical professionals in the field, we even have these experts all actively bringing this arm-chair doctor "treatment" up, in the negative. That "denial of abortion" played no part. They naturally had to bring this up in the negative, after all the arm-chair medical-insinuation-experts, came out of the wood-work.


 * Dr. Divakar, president-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) for 2013-2014. “Based on information in the media, in that situation of septicaemia, if the doctors had meddled with the live baby, Savita would have died two days earlier.”


 * No confusion, says top consultant. ''Dr Coulter-Smith is also clinical professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin  ""This case probably does not have a lot to do with abortion laws," he said..."  This OBGYN should know by the way, as | he conducted 4 life-saving abortions in the same year, of  2012.


 * Microbiologist Dr. James Clair, even stated way back in Nov 2012 that the "main problem is being missed" in the case, stating that the real issue is that the septicemia was caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase positive gram negative bacteria (ESBL), which "are now spreading rapidly within the Irish population" and are resistant to many known antibiotic treatments.

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No one is going to read that rambling textwall and your TL;DR isn't very descriptive at all. Want to try again? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who's right or wrong in the reverts going on here. But I do know from long experience that the winner will be the first one who stops reverting. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As suggested, I re-wrote this entry for easier digestion. Per the advice of 74.70.146.1.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be a WP:FRINGE theory. This simply appears to be a matter of proper diagnosis and cause of death. jps (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * jps. It is a fringe theory as only last week Rónán Mullen, an Irish senator(with no medical background) controversially suggested on national radio that had Ireland "abortion on demand" Savita would still be alive. It is a widespread FRINGE theory and in my efforts to reduce this argument down, it appears that by no fault of your own. You did not pick up the fact that, this is indeed a widespread FRINGE theory, especially within the political or disinformation spheres of society.
 * Ronan Mullen strongly criticised for comments on Savita With ‘abortion on demand she wouldn’t have been in hospital because she wouldn’t have been pregnant’ Oct 2017
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Still not a fringe theory. There are reasonable interpretations of the situation where, if abortion on demand existed in Ireland, it's reasonable to think that Savita would be alive (because, for example, she could have had a procedure earlier in the pregnancy. You've produced evidence that an abortion a few days before her death would not have saved the Savita which is a separate matter. But you have not demonstrated that this idea is actually being pushed as a fringe theory, per se. Being mistaken about how something happened is not the same thing as a fringe theory. jps (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What medically supported "reasonable interpretations of the situation" are you actually referring to? Secondly, Savita did not request an abortion according to her husband until she was in hospital, before which she was reportedly looking forward to starting a family. So I'm sorry but you really are just creating another FRINGE theory here that - she wanted an abortion when she wanted to start a family?


 * Lastly, with respect to "demonstrating that this idea is being pushed". The narrative is being pushed by (A) the 2 primary editors on the article and (B) the references they bring up in the talk page to support the narrative. Two such WP:RS examples being, "Savita Halappanavar - who was denied a life-saving abortion at a Galway hospital" & the New York Times -->  Sewell Chan, June 9, 2016 "In 2012, an Indian-born dentist, Savita Halappanavar, died after doctors refused to perform an abortion while she was having a miscarriage, prompting international outrage."
 * These are not WP:RSMED, yet the 2 editors of the article. Have used them to support the medically erroneous narrative.
 * The narrative that - "Savita died...after being denied an abortion".
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with jps that this isn't a fringe theory as I would define it, but I wouldn't have gone to the bother of edit warring over it. I do believe that the Southern Irish law in this area is barbaric and rather awful though, and is to be abhorred. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Crucially, you seem to be missing the point. The onus is on you to identify the fringe theory. What you seem to instead want to do is to claim that there is no possible way someone could argue that this case study is relevant to abortion law in Ireland. That is a political position which has very little to do with any fringe theory that I can see. Interpretations about this or that notwithstanding. jps (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Tired light
is back at it again with the normal IP accounts. An SPI has been filed, but in the meantime he is likely to begin revert wars. Help is appreciated.

jps (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As you know, jps, CU won't check IPs; all we have is behaviour. I agree about 47.201.179.7 and 47.201.178.44, and have blocked their nice little range, 47.201.178.0/23, for two weeks, with a note at the SPI. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Yeah. Unfortunately, when you file an SPI without the "yes" to CU you get a less-than-prompt response. Often. jps (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. I only found the SPI because you posted here. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC).

Sino-Babylonianism
A very interesting topic necessitating more eyes. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 06:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Migration could have happened, but if that meant "provided the essential elements of material civilization and language", is very fringe. Possibly influencing such developments yes. prokaryotes (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Nikodem Popławski
Oh my. This is some self-congratulatory stuff. I'm not sure whether the article deserves existence, clearly the subject fails WP:PROF, and I don't think his appearance in popular press is reliable at all. jps (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Bharat Jhunjhunwala
has just been edited by the subject. I wasn't bothered by the edits (other than the email address) but Cluebot reverted him. I was surprised by his edit as the article hadn't suggested he was fringe, but the edit stated ''He propounds the theory that the Prophets of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims on the one hand and Hindus on the other hand were the same persons. The persons whom the Jews, Christians and Muslims worship as Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham and Moses were the same persons as those whom the Hindus worship as Swayambhu Manu, Indra, Vaivaswat Manu, Rama and Krishna. Moses, who was the same person as Krishna, led the Exodus from the Indus Valley to Yisrael. Basis of this argument is that the geographical details given in the scriptures and archaeological evidence match with these Prophets having lived in the Indus Valley. The living traditions are amenable to “capture” hence only those living traditions may be accepted which match with the geographical and archaeological evidence.'' Note that he actually did receive the claimed award. I added the link to Panchjanya (magazine) which I also edited to give information about its link to the ruling party in India, which for those who are unaware, pushes fringe beliefs. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)
Alexander has returned to edit this article. Two minor unexceptionable edits and then a major pov one which I've reverted and told him to take to his article's talk page. Might need some eyes. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Kadrolsha Ona Carole
"Paranormal researcher" up for deletion. Others might find something; I found nothing in print. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hall of Records
I gave this article a light editing yesterday, to make it clear that there is no mythology involved with a "Hall of Records", a term invented by Edgar Cayce, and to remove the following text:

The Hall has been said by some historical commentators, including Manetho and Plutarch, to house the knowledge of the Pre-Dynastic Founders and latter Egyptians on papyrus, as well as several inscribed golden metal plate scrolls with a partial history of the lost civilisation of Atlantis, much as the Great Library of Alexandria housed Grecian knowledge.

Despite knowing the term had been invented in the early 20th century, I did do my due diligence to see if I could source it. User:Smuckola reverted me despite the fact that the citation template was 10 1/2 years old with the edit summary "then feel free to find a citation. there's nothing dubious or WP:UNDUEabout it." Unless things have change drastically this restoration of unsourced text shouldn't be done, and it is certainly more than dubious. The article is about the "Hall of Records", not about mysterious golden plates or even the knowledge of Pre-Dynastic founders. Claims that commentators such as Manetho or Plutarch or other "historical commentators", which means in the context those living long ago" about golden plates might be suitable for Atlantis but anything about Egypt's history being hidden would be a separate article if indeed there were proper sources. Unless I see actual arguments based either on sources or policy and guidelines I'll revert it again at some point. If someone here can find a better category than the red-linked "Mythological libaries" I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 09:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * On it, and got ride of the infobox with coordinates. Mangoe (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

For the time being, I just added parent category Libraries. We do not seem to have other articles on mythological libraries.

Now as for Manetho writing about this, how would we know? Manetho was a Hellenistic Egyptian priest who wrote the "Aegyptiaca", a book on the history of Egypt. Most of his work is now lost. What he have are fragments and summaries of his work by other writers, such as Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Jerome, John Malalas, and George Syncellus. And some of the fragments are contradictory to each other.

With Plutarch, a Roman-Greek priest, we have more of his works preserved. However his most famous work Parallel Lives, is a group of biographical accounts of various historical (and a few mythological) figures. The historical setting is from the 13th century BC to the 1st century AD. Is there any specific work of Plutarch used as a source here? Dimadick (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Tengri
Tengri currently has a link to Dingir (a Sumerian word), with a citation dating back to the 50's, which cites research from the 20's, that states that the Turkish and Sumerian Languages are related (they're not).

When I put in an edit request to have the link removed, I was told that I had to provide "a source that characterized the Sumerian-Turkic connection as fringe research".

Would anyone care to chime in on this? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To repeat exactly what I posted on the article talk page: No, I'm asking you to provide some academic disputation of a Sumerian-Turkic connection. If I wanted to, say, edit an article to say that the continents move through oceanic crust over time, disputing that wouldn't be proving a negative. All you'd have to do is refer to the voluminous literature on plate tectonics. Similarly, if you think the theory of Sumerian-Turkic linguistic connection is a fringe theory, then there should be some linguist somewhere who has disputed that in something. Somebody obviously published the theory that the connection exists, after all. That's the type of reference this requires. Please also reference WP:FORUMSHOP. Waiting all of five minutes between demanding and explanation and searching for support of your position is not how the WP:BRD process is generally supposed to work.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Here are THREE references describing Sumerian as a "language isolate" . Current consensus on the Sumerian language talk page has rejected any relation between the two languages, or indeed between Sumerian and any known language.


 * Going back to the source I'm trying to remove, said source makes the connections bases it's assertions on the now discredited hypothesis of an Altaic language family.


 * Also, I apologize for my testiness, but it's aggravating to no end to see such pseudolinguistics be given serious consideration. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The user above (IP account 74.70.146.1) has been already reported for edit-warring in the article Dingir. There are reliable and verifiable sources that points out that the Sumerian Dingir might be a loan from Turkic Tengri/Tengir. Both being the primary gods in the respective religions. Here is the source which is constantly being removed by him without any reason:

Languages don't have to be related genetically to possess loan words, so his reasoning here has no basis whatsoever. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you.  Those are exactly the type of references that I was indicating were required to make the original requested edit. Considering that the sources disputing a Sumerian-Turkic connection are specifically doubting the former theory that one exists, as in the 1958 reference, it's clear that scholarship has begun to doubt the connection. That means the cited sources is no longer sufficient for verifiability purposes and the proposed removal should be allowed.  I won't make such an edit until others have had a chance to chime in.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood something. This case is not about the Altaic languages etc, but about a possible loan word relationship between Dingir and Tengri/Tengir, which is evidenced in the source I gave. So a removal would be wrong, because that's not what the source says. Akocsg (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue about Altaic languages is pretty much disputed and in this case WP:SYNTH, but it is also off topic here, do any citations show that the cite about etymology has been superseded? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Widom-Larsen theory
The cold fusion "industry" heralded this idea as promising, but twelve years on and still no one takes this idea seriously except cold fusion true believers (man they hate it when you call them that). I am trying to decide whether it is worthy of inclusion. My instinct is "no", but would like other opinions.

jps (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It needs expansion. But seems to have got a fair bit of novice, even from cold fusion denialists (man they hate it when you call them that).Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources? jps (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, , all seem to discus issues with it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Color me seriously unimpressed. The Discover Magazine article seems really to be one off. It's not surprising that there seems to be no other popsci coverage of this obscure idea. The first book is a fringe-infested jaunt through the journalistic acumen of Steven Krivit (not a scientist, so not a reliable source on any subject relating to science). The second book is a compendium and includes only monographs that are not edited, so the cold fusion proponent who waxes eloquent on the theory doesn't provide a lot of context. The final source is a database dump and is a verbatim press release from proponents. jps (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict Agreed. Testing it against the WP:GNG (as we would if taken to AfD) The article's current sources show the first paragraph, at least, is cited to significant mentions in independent, reliable sources. This would be the Discover,  European Physical Journal C, and European Journal of Physics articles. I see that at least 87 scholarly articles or books cite the original paper. The extension of this theory into thunderstorms, magnetite rocks, etc., however, seems rather bizarre.  I say this despite original authors being involved (e.g., Photo-disintegration of the iron nucleus in fractured magnetite rocks with magnetostriction Widom, Swain, Srivastava (2015))   to the editor who has added most of that content.  I think it clearly passes GNG and would survive AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I created this article after reading quite a bit about it, it was interesting to learn more in-depth what critics thought about the math (not much). I thought it was worth an article though, as the scholarly citation count should be enough to meet GNG alone, much less the discussions that have been made in the pop-sci media. Thanks for the ping. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  17:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that cold fusion proponents publish in obscure, out-of-the-way fringe journals and do a lot of citation churn amongst each other. The journals you cite aren't exactly high on my list of impressive publications. jps (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The original article in European Physical Journal C isn't in an out-of-the-way or fringe journal by any reasonable definition. Scopus gives it an h-index of 131, ranking #20 out of 248 journals in the Physics & Astronomy (Miscellaneous) category.  While that may not be Nature it's hardly something like Kerguelen Review of Hecto-Picoscale Insensible Observations Yes, I did have fun making up that name. Sorry.  Discover is a mass-market publication with a circulation of over 500,000 sales, so a significant article there demonstrates independent notice.  Just because something is a fringe theory or even a legit theory misapplied to a fringe area does not exclude it from GNG.  Assume that all of those 87 cites of the original paper are the type of publication churn you mention, as well as the every cite in the second paragraph. Even without those, the article would pass GNG just on the three I mentioned earlier. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We rarely, if ever, write an article on the basis of a single paper. The citations to the original paper and mostly churn as we pointed out above. At best, we have five WP:FRIND-compliant ones. I'm not sure that GNG is the right way to think about this since it may be difficult to write a WP:NPOV article on the subject. The current article is certainly not neutral. jps (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

There are huge problems with this idea not the least of which that about 10^11 Bq of beta radiation would be expected for every watt of power generated (the dead grad student problem in a different form). Of course, because essentially no one except true believers gives a care about cold fusion nonsense, nobody seems to have expanded upon this obvious point which is exactly why I think we have an instance of an unnoticed fringe theory. Poorly vetted books and a solitary article from Discover Magazine from five years ago notwithstanding. jps (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article covers what the most reliable sources say about the subject. It includes a link to the most reliable and detailed reviews of the topic (Einor Tennfors in the European Journal of Physics, as well as Babich et al for the thunderstorm neutron theories). The articles accurately sums up the reviewers' criticism for the theory. Notability is not temporary, and I'm not sure what you want as an outcome here. FYI, in the papers about the theory there are some rationalizations for why beta radiation is not observed (or at least it is 'screened'), perhaps this should be added to the article to improve the clarity on this point (the rationalizations aren't very good, according to Tennfors, but they are there).
 * Even if theories don't work out, that doesn't mean they aren't notable. Usually physicists will propose dozens of theories before the phenomenon is adequately explained, that doesn't mean that prominent failed theories are not notable, nor does it mean that we should for some reason delete the articles for notable theories that fail to live up to their proposers' aspirations or fail to survive academic peer-reviewed scrutiny. This is one of the few cold-fusion/LENR theories that has been subject to detailed academic peer review and scrutiny, and if nothing else, failed theories are examples of what didn't work to explain the anomalies observed in experiments (and this is an important part of developing theoretical physics theories). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"physicists will propose dozens of theories before the phenomenon is adequately explained","anomalies observed in experiments". This assumes facts not in evidence: namely that there are any phenomena that need explaining or that there are any anomalies that are something more than pathological science. It's also not true that this is "one of the few cold-fusion/LENR theories that has been subject to detailed academic peer review and scrutiny". In fact, this is not subject to much scrutiny whatsoever. There are exactly two non-true-believer sources that I can find that treat the idea with the necessary independence. I'm not looking for any outcome at all, but the way this "theory" is being described in Wikipedia currently is not, I would say, doing readers any service. jps (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You spoke of "worthy of inclusion" in your initial message here. Other than this tepid suggestion for deletion you haven't offered any suggestion for changes/improvements. As for independent sources used in the article; there are three separate Babich et al papers that discuss the theory, the one by Tennfors, and The Discovery source. There are literally zero 'true-believer' sources here; even the primary sources used in the article are cited to highly reputable peer-reviewed physics journals. I'm afraid that you have run out of rope with my good faith, and it appears that you simply just don't like it. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment. If I didn't know any better I would think you had an agenda or something. I am merely pointing out that you are arguing that cold fusion anomalies are actual phenomena when the vast consensus of reliable sources says that it is not.
 * I think it is undeniable that this topic is fringe. I think it is also undeniable that the coverage of it is scant. Trying to argue that the Babich papers are conferring notability on this idea seems to me to be a stretch. I'm not even entirely sure why these ideas were taken seriously and there is paltry citation going on here compared to most other ideas in physics (I challenge you to find a "theory" less cited than this with it's own Wikipedia article).
 * jps (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And you're not doing your point of view any favors, either. If sources that would pass AfD on any day of the week keep running into special pleading from you as to why they aren't RS just for this topic, then it does sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  I don't think anything  has said indicates he thinks that cold fusion is a viable theory, as you are implying.  Bad theories, fringe theories, even outright nonsense theories can all be notable.  If you aren't confident enough to bring this to AfD, then why not use the article talk page to propose specific improvements?  Continuing the discussion here doesn't seem likely to be fruitful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merging is another option. Finding better sources is another. Also, I think it is important to understand that "cold fusion" is not a "theory". No one is arguing that nonsense cannot be notable. I am arguing that we have some poor sources here and, no, I do not buy the GNG argument necessarily. We've deleted other articles that had more "sources" on the basis of WP:FLASHINTHEPAN together with WP:FRIND. The real question is whether we have high quality sources. It appears to me that we do not, but I also am not sure if there aren't better ones. jps (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet by my reading of this thread, the answer to that "real question" is that all three other editors who have expressed an opinion have considered your argument about quality of sources and find them at least good enough. It is equally true to say that we've kept articles that had worse sources. I won't go to the wall to defend this article's right to exist but you asked for opinions and there they are. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly impressed with the quality any of your responses to the fundamental points. Citing h-indices for entire journals and arguing that Discover Magazine is magic is, well, precious. I'll wait for some other responses. jps (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I too think that further discussion with you on this topic is fairly pointless. I'll wait to see if someone else is willing to opine on the topic. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile
Talk:Cold_fusion

Opinions welcome.

jps (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Turanism
What brought my attention to it was its removal from the pseudoscience category. There are interesting recent edits to review. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 15:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)
Subject is making major POV edits to their own article. despite my warning. I went to COIN but no response. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Tesla shield
An interesting new draft — Paleo Neonate  – 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Psi encyclopedia
The Society for Psychical Research has now has an online encyclopedia to compete with Wikipedia articles on parapsychology. They claim that Wikipedia's articles on psychical topics are too skeptical and they attempt to 'balance' the case with their own articles. , Having had a look at their articles it seems their agenda is to claim various psychics and mediums were actually genuine. Their article on Dean Radin claims he is doing legit science and claims his Wikipedia article was highjacked by skeptics. I have noticed that this "Psi encyclopedia" has started to pop up on various Wikipedia related articles as a reference. I believe any case of this website should be removed. The website seems to be very negative about Wikipedia. What do you guys think about this? Should it be blacklisted? 78.108.46.82 (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a fringe source, and probably useful only for things that can be independently corroborated, or for verifying statements made by fringe practitioners. There are plenty of ideological reference sites that compete with Wikipedia, but they get traction only for the choir to whom they preach (Conservapedia being one example). ~Anachronist (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be used as source, but might be useful for finding references. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster
There is a section in this article called "Difficulties in assessment, media hysteria and unscientific claims". It was a mess. First it made claims in wikipedias voice on medical "facts" with non-MEDRS sources. It then had a couple of paragraphs deriding these claims in a very editorial tone. You can see this version here.[ Anyway I deleted and tidied up what I could . I am still not very happy with the result. This is not a topic I am overly familiar with, so I would like to see what others think. Personally I am leaning to deleting the whole mess of a section, but we may lose a [[Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater|baby]] in the process. Any ideas or help appreciated. AIR corn (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As the editor who tagged that section as needing major review along with changing the name of the section to better reflect what had been contained within it. I truly appreciate the assistance, especially removing the non-MEDRS book and its accompanying text. However as it stands now, the vast majority of the remaining references are reliable. If you or someone else could re-write what remains of the section, to remove the perception of the editorial tone, that would greatly improve the article.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am interested in doing more at this article. I was testing the waters with my first few edits. I commented here to see if anyone had any experience with this article as I didn't see any of the regular outspoken science editors in the history. I have edited it before and run into issues with an editor (no longer here) and it felt like it was a neglected area then. I have more experience with similar articles (GMO not nuclear) now though so we will see what happens. AIR corn (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You know, I think I remember who you are talking about in regards to the "editor (no longer here)" who would edit this page and prevent the article from reflecting the NPOV consensus/WP:MEDS. Though I can imagine that editing articles on GMOs was no less a formative experience alright, nuclear winter was mine. I find the contentious science & medicine articles the most in need of work and dedicate myself to them as well, when time permits. Speaking about Chernobyl, there were more than likely science publications for the 2016 anniversary that could definitely improve the article, the most surprising revelation that I added was that the infamous bubbler-pool-story, as emotively depicted in the BBC docudrama "Surviving disaster - Chernobyl Nuclear" was in actuality a major exaggeration. The men who were said to have died, survived, and were largely still wondering in 2016, how such a depiction of them, even came about.


 * One area that I've always felt the article needed work on, apart from the things I tagged around the article, were the maps. Specifically the fallout plumes heading in different directions, dependent on the various isotope boiling points(with iodine and cesium isotopes naturally falling out the furthest from the accident and the "heavy" plutonium & americium depositing pretty nearby) However I have not found any free maps to use on wikicommons unfortunately.


 * The other outspoken science editors could definitely do with coming in and shaking the article up, seeing what stands up to scrutiny. The encyclopedia as a whole, certainly needs more science editors.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Doug Powell (food safety)
This appears to be teased out of marginal or unreliable sources. Does this meet WP:PROF? 82.21.88.44 (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There appeared to be a small consensus to redirect the article to Food Safety Network in 2007 (and it was) but this was later reverted in 2008 by a now retired editor. I failed to find mentions in The Guardian and Washington Post; maybe that the redirect should be reconsidered...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And the article itself was basically written by an associate, so yes, it's advertorial and should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2017‎ (UTC)
 * I restored the redirect and will see if it sticks, if it doesn't I'll nominate it at AfD. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

NHS plans to scrap homeopathy treatments
In the UK, the National Health Service has announced plans to stop doctors prescribing homeopathy, herbal and other "low value" treatments. It hopes to save almost £200m a year by ending what the head of the service called a "misuse of scarce" NHS funds. Link --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Similar event in Australia: WT:MED. — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For some unfathomable reason, various people who make good money providing homeopathic cures have a problem with this. My solution: pay them with homeopathic money! Take one genuine banknote, dilute it 100:1 with 99 slips of blank paper, pull one of the 100 pieces of paper at random, dilute it another 100 times, repeat six or even times. Using this method you can easily generate enough homeopathic money to pay all of the vendors of homeopathic remedies whatever they charge. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Like banks do?[Humor] — Paleo Neonate  – 00:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Oncothermia
There are many sites to crappy journals in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017‎ (UTC)
 * My initial glance would suggest it is total bollocks, and very badly written, badly enough to be almost meaningless. I haven't actually done anything though, as I would like a second opinion. from you guys. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My advice:
 * [1] Merge into a small section of our Hyperthermia therapy article. Oncothermia and Hyperthermia therapy are the same thing.
 * [2] Remove all nonscientific claims from our Hyperthermia therapy article.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The article smells very fishy. Follow my reasoning.
 * It looks like a plurality of citations are to some combination of coauthors sharing the surname Szasz. At least one of them, Oliver Szasz, is also identified in some of the papers as a leadership employee of a Hungarian company called Oncotherm.
 * Virtually all of the content now in our article was added in two editing sessions by a pair of Hungarian IPs.  The first,, changed the existing redirect (which pointed to hyperthermia therapy) into description of Oncotherm's technology in September 2010.  The second, , added some great lumps of stuff (a lot of which looks kind of like copy-pasta from someone's CV or website, but I haven't gone digging yet to determine where it came from) in September 2017.
 * Of particular note, that second IP's last few edits were to create an External Links section for the article. The five external links added were: Oncotherm's website, Oncotherm's Facebook page, Oncotherm's LinkedIn page, Oncotherm's Twitter feed, and Oncotherm's YouTube channel.
 * I have tried without success to come up with any plausible explanation for this article's existence beyond either an egregious undisclosed COI or outright paid editing. Given the dubious provenance of the article's content, its overreliance on a walled garden of authors, and the generally low robustness of most of the sources, we may be best to just restore the redirect to hyperthermia therapy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Bonus notes: I found the copy-pasta source. Unsurprisingly, it's from Oncotherm's website.  (Incidentally, Oliver Szasz is the company's Managing Director; Andras Szasz is the Research Director.  Frankly, I can't help but think that one or both of them should have been more proactive about disclosing their affiliations and potential COIs in a number of their publications, but I digress.)  This edit is straight from here. The original 2010 addition was copied straight from another company page here.
 * Either there's a gross and undisclosed conflict of interest, in which case we should scrub the article; or there's a massive infringement of the company's copyright, in which case we should scrub the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in this article worth salvaging or merging? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the text was all copied from a company website, it's problematic to use from both a COI and a licensing/copyright perspective. Anyone is welcome to have a look at the article history (or just follow the links I provided above) to have a look for worthwhile nuggets, but the assorted red flags I'm seeing would make me very reluctant to trust the company's spin on this topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

[SPAM DETECTED] [A.F.D.  FILED] [RESULT=DELETE] [   FIRE!!! ] .--. .-. .-. .-.  |       o      | |      |      | |    \ o /    | |  \`. | .'/ |  |     /\    | |   -- + --   | |   --(+)--   | |-- *NUKE!* --| |______/_\_____| |     |      | |_____/|\_____| |__/_'_|_'_\__|  '--' '-' '-' '-' --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD for Jason Lisle
A second one, actually. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:KT Astrologer
Astrologer BLP with interesting, primary sourced claims. — Paleo Neonate  – 08:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've listed it on MfD. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC).
 * And the MfD has now drawn a number of interesting socks (all blocked). Bishonen &#124; talk 22:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC).
 * There was a lot of action there. Face-smile.svg Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In case you were unaware of it
Finland does not exist. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A Finnish friend lately admitted to me that he actually lived in a basement in my Canadian city (for real, but as a joke). — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't all that long ago that much of Finland didn't exist. But I think it exists now. Unless my friend Markku has been lying. You just never know for sure about people. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Aircosmo Theory
"A model consistent with Aircosmic Theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomenon such as extra-sensory perception (ESP)". — Paleo Neonate  – 22:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Scholarly article labelled FRINGE
An editor has labelled a 2016 journal article by scholar Mahesh Shankar as FRINGE. The full citation here: The abstract says:

According to the editor, the fact the article goes against the grain and disagrees with the majority of sources (but not all) that were published earlier makes it FRINGE. What is your view? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears you could put aside FRINGE and just look at due and weight. Shankar doesn't seem to be a very notable scholar, being barely cited. Given that, I'd say the editor cutting down the article text to a shorter attributed couple sentences is the right call. Capeo (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment For a reasonable background of why the source is actually deemed inadequate, observers may want to read the arguments put forth by users here, here and here.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, this is a contentious topic area and as such requires high level tertiary and authoritative sources vetted for neutrality and authoritativeness like Schofield's book, but Kautilya3 dismisses it on flimsy pretext. Kautilya3's strategy is to examine the sources of the sources and cast aspersions on the motives of scholars and writers (as he has done against 'Western' scholars ) who he does not agree with under some pretext or the other (this is where the WP:OR comes in and because I have no interest or expertise in the motivations and experiences of scholars rather my job as a neutral editor is to summarise the sources according to their weight it becomes difficult for me to edit with synch unreason ability) and then push and base entire sections of articles on the views and analysis of his favourite scholar, who in this case is the author of a self-admitted revisionist account.


 * Some relevant extracts from the Shankar article,


 * Scholars have similarly pointed to Nehru’s occasional expression of skepticism about the wisdom and practicality of holding a plebiscite
 * Most prominent accounts of the Kashmir dispute attribute Nehru’s role in the failure to achieve peace to the immense nationalist, strategic, and even emotional value India’s first prime minister attached to the territory


 * I believe it is these scholars and 'most important accounts' which need more weight on the article.


 * We on Wikipedia are bound per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE to merely state scholarly opinions and summarise them according to their prominence in the field. Giving a self admitted minority view/analysis more space than necessary and making it seem in the article as the correct view is just POV pushing.


 * Kautilya3 then claims that a peer reviewed journal article with 126 citations can't be called WP:FRINGE. He also calls it 'new research'. These line of arguments are red herrings. All Wikipedia labels as FRINGE is an idea which significantly departs from the mainstream view in the field, no matter who the author and publisher is. KA$HMIR (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , with all due respect, this is Fringe theory noticeboard. It is not the place to argue the whole Kashmir conflict or to complain about editors. If you have a case to make as to why this source should be considered WP:FRINGE, please make it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment--Mahesh is a barely-cited scholar and the culling was the right call w.r.t to WP:WEIGHT. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 07:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not getting how this source can be considered fringe if his writings have been published in reliable sources and not contradicted by most of other experts of the field? Capitals00 (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the above.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To Kautilya3: you need to understand WP:FRINGE. In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."

It is visible to all readers that Shankar is propounding an idea which contradicts the mainstream views in this topic. He admits it himself

"It particularly addresses critics’ claims—in Pakistan and in the scholarly community—that the failure of the plebiscite option owed itself solely to Nehru’s intransigence"

Scholars have similarly pointed to Nehru’s occasional expression of skepticism about the wisdom and practicality of holding a plebiscite

"Most prominent accounts" of the Kashmir dispute attribute Nehru’s role in the failure to achieve peace to the immense nationalist, strategic, and even emotional value India’s first prime minister attached to the territory.

Being in a 'scholarly' source is irrelevant to the fact that it is an idea without wider acceptance in the scholarly community, this is explicitly admitted by the 'scholar' who authored this theory. This source is a revisionist account and revisionist accounts not accepted by the wider scholarly community are fringe regardless of whether they're published in peer-reviewed journal articles or not. It is a matter of common sense that this Shankar source is not anything but fringe.-- NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone Waste Heat Engine
This survived AFD two and a half years back on no consensus. It has the classic Energy Catalyzer-style list of every last little sales detail, so you know it's important. One GScholar hit and six GBook hits.

BTW this is likely my last FT/N submission as I haven't been able to make a new article in a long time, and getting bad cats and articles deleted is hardly a way to do business. Mangoe (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a fringe theory? It looks overly promotional, but that's perhaps a different matter. jps (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I read it, this seems to be taking the usual input for a cogeneration plant (waste heat from another process) and turning it into electrical power using a radial piston engine, correct? There's noting inherently fringe-y about that that I can see. ABB, GE, Siemens, and other multi-national companies sell such things every day but they use turbines instead of piston engines.  I don't see any claims about free energy or over-unity or other red flags, but maybe I'm missing something?  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears as if that article could be merged into Cyclone Mark V Engine prokaryotes (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As the others have noted, this looks like an excruciatingly- and unnecessarily-detailed article about a pre-commercialization(?) device with a much-too-promotional tone, but doesn't actually seem to be fringe. As far as I can tell, there's nothing particularly unusual about it from an obeying-the-laws-of-physics standpoint; it's just a small steam engine.
 * Like the related article, a great deal of trimming looks to be required, since – as far as I can tell from our articles, and correct me if I'm mistaken – the company hasn't delivered a single unit of any of its devices to customers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Flat Earth conference held in Cary
"A lot of people, including celebrities like NBA player Kyrie Irving and Tila Tequila, have publicly said in the past that they think our planet is as flat, and attendees at a conference held this week in Cary apparently agree. The Flat Earth International Conference put on a sold-out a meeting Nov. 9-10 at the Embassy Suites in Cary.

According to the group's website, registration fees to attend the conference ranged from $27 (for online streaming) all the way up to $249 for a VIP package. Several attendees apparently drove campers to the event and parked them in the hotel parking lot while the conference was underway.

Convention organizers paid for a billboard advertisement that was erected in late October along Route 401.

The group of people who believe the Earth is flat has gained momentum in recent years and been the subject of social media feuds and several national news reports.

The convention in Cary was set to feature 14 speakers and include exhibitions and panel discussions about topics that included: NASA and other space lies; Flat Earth with the scientific method; and waking up to mainstream science lies."

http://www.wral.com/flat-earth-conference-held-in-cary-/17105359/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Joseph and Aseneth's largest section is a fringe view
A vast chunk of it is devoted to Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson's fringe book The Lost Gospel. Most of it, although now revised, was added here by who has been pushing these sources into various articles. The article on their book looks as though it needs work, and AncientScrolls100 has clearly used Barrie Wilson's home page as a source for review snippets at Wilson's BLP. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks as though The Lost Gospel is rotting again and is having trouble saying that it's bosh. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

IP and predatory journals
An IP,, has been going around to articles removing mentions related to Beall's list. More eyes would be helpful on the articles they've been editing such as Stephanie Seneff, Oncotarget, etc. Especially since there's been a history of socking and disruptive editors on the subject, the IP citing wikilinks like a somewhat experienced editor getting into potential WP:DUCK territory, but I'm not familiar enough with recent ongoings in the topic area to check it out further very quickly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory of the week: NFL football is a psychopathic death trap idol.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/10/31/former-qb-bizarre-conspiracy-theory-nfl/

Key quote:


 * "And then I started reading about my homies, the Russians, who four years ago did extensive studies on DNA, okay, and what they found was that the double helix DNA, which is in every single cell in our body, is a fractal antenna, and it hears words and sounds. And so the people here in the United States who have been watching football Thursday nights, Sunday mornings, Sunday afternoon, Sunday night, Monday night, for 40 years, their DNA has heard all those violent sounds…well the problem with it is, when you worship a psychopathic death trap idol like the NFL, you become like your idol. The Bible says that you become like your idol that you worship, and they just don’t seem to really care, it has dehumanized them."

-Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Bonus: Five of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Weirdest Conspiracy Theories --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"The Bible says that you become like your idol that you worship"

Where does it say that if you worship a god, you become a god?

And I think you missed something on the source text. After all the mumbo-jumbo on how the NFL dehumanizes American audiences: "He goes on to say that this is what causes the country to get into so many wars."

And there I thought the United States has been fighting wars since the 18th century. Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on use of Frank Collin aka Frank Joseph as a source
This is about using his books on military history as a source. That's not fringe but he definitely is, so I think the RSN discussion is relevant to editors here. I've raised this at WP:RSN Doug Weller  talk 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Frank Collin as a source? He is a former Neo-Nazi, who was kicked out from a Neo-Nazi party due to a conviction for molesting children. He has since turned into a New Age writer, whose main claim to fame is supporting the historicity of Atlantis and Lemuria. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Mind control
Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Serpent Mound
Just a heads up, I removed 2 paragraphs from the article Serpent Mound sourced to fringe author Ross Hamilton. He's an Atlantis/giant nephilim/stars of Draco enthusiast who sometimes does lectures with notorious fringer Graham Hancock. Also, there is currently a minor kerfuffle surrounding the site concerning the Ohio Historical Society and some new age groups no longer being permitted to hold events at the site. I do not know if anyone will show to "set the record straight" here, but some extra eyes on the article for awhile might not be a bad idea. Cheers.  He  iro 22:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Magicians of the Gods
Redirect just changed into an article. Quite a few problems including poor sources and stating disputed event as fact. No time now to fix. Doug Weller talk 06:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are there any new claims in the book? It supports the controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which concerns comet impacts and an extinction event at 12,900 BP. The hypothesis is disputed because it seems to contradict a number of archaeological and palaeontological data. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think an WP:AfD is in order as a failure of WP:BK. But someone should check to see if anyone has bothered to write a review beyond the single rather wet blanket one offered in the Washington Times. jps (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I see on the net discussions of the book by Kirkus Reviews, The Huffington Post, and the Telegraph of the UK. Those articles, and others, may well be enough to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Mirko Beljanski


This looks incredibly fishy to me. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited this a few years ago: I'd suggest I left it in a state which is rather more neutral than what we've got now.. Key point now downplayed is that Beljanski's treatments were ineffective. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Relatedly: a blog post by his son about Wikipedia's article. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ^^^ he means daughter ^^^ -Roxy the dog. barcus 16:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * O yes, sorry. They claim Beljanski was never found guilty, and this was removed from the article by an IP shortly after this blog appeared. But it was pretty well sourced that he was. Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well he certainly appears to have been "sentenced" in 1994, but everything I can find (easily) is in french, and the 'foundation' seems to be handy with the whitewash. The french versions of the story are a lot more complicated than anything I can find in english, and unfortunately the french is way above my ability. -Roxy the dog. barcus 18:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at the court documents it appears he was found guilty of malpractice in 1994, but then the investigation continued for ages and so an award was made to his widow later. Following more POV-editing I have reverted and neutralized the article; probably needs watchful eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Christ myth theory
Mass edits being done by an IP who seems to be dominating this article. He inserted a sentence which claimed that some of the arguments used by mythicists are accepted by mainstream academia and linked to two blogs. 139.99.130.220 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - 74.138.106.1 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

A message from Bastyr University
This was just posted at Talk:Bastyr University. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor had already tried some whitewashing a while ago. No WP:COI declaration has been made. Alexbrn (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Boss has tied me up in the backyard. Let me have my ipad though. Ugh, I can't get loose. -Roxy the dog. barcus 00:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that the July dates that the account were active coincide rather nicely with this interesting story. Things that make you go, "hmm." jps (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Boss doesn't know I slipped my lead. -Roxy the dog. barcus 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I put a list of new sources that can be incorporated into the article, and help would be appreciated. Delta13C (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Mental Potentials Create Many Realities or Many Worlds
Currently at MfD. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 10:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel us creating the reality that this tract does not exist. Mangoe (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as a first step, it would help if the draft established the book’s actual existence, so we know this isn’t a hoax. I note that the draft does not contain ANY sources or links. At a minimum, we need a citation pointing us to where we could find it. Hell, the draft does not even mention who wrote the book (and you would expect that to be one of the first things to be mentioned) Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone named Kevin Luckerson apparently wrote it and published it to Createspace. WP:SELFPUB. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

GMO Conspiracy Theories!
Articles for deletion/GMO conspiracy theories.

Comment please!

jps (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

And now!

Articles for deletion/Monsanto public relations activities.

jps (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Chicken or the egg
I don't really want to get sanctioned over edit warring here, so please see.

has been adding a lot of questionable stuff, with poor English and weird layout. He's a fairly new editor and has been extremely active lately, also apparently trying to scrub any links to this article from anywhere else on Wikipedia. I don't know if this is the best place to bring this up (ANI seems like overkill), but I'm not sure wheat else to do here. I really don't have the time or patience to chase down everything that he's been doing, so any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing to look at IMO. User unable to explain removed inline references:
 * User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis
 * according to WP:BURDEN
 * I asked assistance with layout at Editor_assistance/Requests but nobody really cares
 * And it is not clear what is "bad layout" in 1 or 2 D1gggg (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is really not very good. The sourcing was particularly atrocious and there are a lot of asserted statements that have no citations. I removed a lot of text cited to what is essentially a self-published essay and the dictionary. One entire section was cited only to the bible. Do we actually need such an article? Is there a possible redirect? jps (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Section with bible is not my creation
 * Unfortunately we don't have a better sourced article
 * Literal answers to "egg or chicken" are as popular as "lemon battery"
 * By no means they could be "Fringe theories" or speculative.
 * All of my edits support mainstream view: "egg was first".
 * This discussion should be elsewhere. D1gggg (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think an article on the expression as it relates to the first cause question is appropriate and would not favor conversion to a redirect, but I am less enthused about the undue weight currently given to answering the question in its literal sense given that most uses of the expression are rhetorical. Anyhow, though the existing article is not a good one, I agree that it is not a fringe issue. Agricolae (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic of the first cause question seems to me to maybe be a reasonable subject for an article on that philosophical question. This article is not however that article. Unfortunately, from a quick search of the first ten Google returns for that phrase, I see a lot of stuff for the cosmological argument but nothing on the question in other contexts, so I'm not at all sure what the best title for it might be. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy-theory addled user attempting to POV push to add hoax information to articles via word-salad edits
For the most egregious example, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier&diff=809663502&oldid=809659332

"We now know that Fusion GPS executives are being uncooperative with the investigation and have pleaded the 5th; the Clinton campaign funded part of the Steele dossier, there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton, and the FBI also funded part of that dossier."

User needs a block.209.140.43.55 (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then report them on the correct forum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't this the conspiracy theory noticeboard?209.140.43.55 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the user is not a conspiracy theory, you need to take it to ani if you think a user needs blocking.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard mentioned in media
"An internal Wikipedia forum meant to combat conspiracy theories" has to be this place. Interesting article, too: A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yup, it's this place. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * These one-time editors’ lack of experience became clear when they began voting in favor of keeping the article on Wikipedia – a practice not employed in the English version of Wikipedia since 2016, when editors voted to exchange the way articles are deleted for a process of consensus-based decision through discussion. Mmm? The vote-and-discussion hybrid method of handling issues has been ongoing for a while. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Few articles in the popular press reflect an accurate understanding of how Wikipedia works. As these things go, the article was better than many I've seen. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And then point if this is?Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, having looked at the article in question, which seems to me to be more about the man than the deletion of his article, I think that article, along with one or two others I've seen that are primarily biographical, is probably enough to get his article recreated and probably kept now. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't help but wonder whether this is a case of English-speaking bias. There might be many reliable sources in German that may have established his notability.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, yes I can see this, but I find it odd that this occurred not because of a lack of notability, but due to his sudden change of beleife, which is not what Fringe should be about.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes... we have many articles on proponents of fringe theories (indeed most are notable BECAUSE of their fringe advocacy) ... what matters isn’t what this guy believes, but whether independent sources have discussed him (beyond passing mentions). He sure seems like the sort of person who would likely to have enough sources that discuss him to pass GNG... both for his academic work and for his advocacy.  So we should definitely look to see whether there are any German sources, and re-examine the English ones. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ya know, after receiving some complaints on my talk page I did a source search and found some German sources. All of them either by the subject or passing mentions, with the focus being on his work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked at this fellow's Google Scholar profile and at least on that basis his wiki-notability with respect to WP:PROF is at best borderline. We have lots of bios on borderline or non-notable academics that slide through under the radar because no one is really looking. What seems to have happened here is that people started looking. My interpretation is that his article wasn't deleted because he is a creationist (we have lots of articles on creationists), but because his creationism brought the scrutiny that all BLPs should have but too often don't. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Next question... has he become notable BECAUSE he supports intelligent design? Are there sources (other than the one that inspired this thread) that highlight his advocacy (for example, media sources that quote him when discussing ID, or refer to him as being a prominent advocate of ID). Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We're at a point where he may be reaching levels of WP:BIO famous for having his Wikipedia page removed. SMH. jps (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Famous for having been on WP. It could happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Josh has a good point in indicating that we don't want to enable individuals to game the system and establish notability based on being found non-notable here. Having said that, I have no clue at all as to how to work to make sure it doesn't happen again. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It would require a change in policy. My guess is the community would not be okay with it. jps (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "we don't want to enable individuals to game the system and establish notability based on being found non-notable here", so my plan to become part of a juicy scandal involving weasels and politicians (but I repeat myself...) in order to get my own Wikipedia page is off? :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. The evil wikipedian cabal may erase your English Wikipedia page, but you can still keep your German, Italian, and Danish pages. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember that the article subject can’t “game the system” on his own... we still need sources to comment on the subject. A person can not become notable simply by having his article deleted from Wikipedia... however a person could become notable by having reliable sources NOTE that his article got deleted. It’s the coverage in sources that establishes Notability, not the deletion itself. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if a topic or person might have a friend of some sort in the independent media, getting that to happen might not be that hard, particularly if what is involved is a book or writer or topic that has some sort of related periodical. I'm thinking of some non-notable religious groups and writers who would love to have the apparent legitimacy some think is conferred by having an article here. So, for instance, one source I know says there are about 20,000 distinct Christian groups or denominations out there, counting all the independent churches separately, including the internet churches. This sort of thing might work for a lot of them. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Highly unlikely... and if proven we can claim that the source is not “independent”. The fact is, people become WP:Notable for all sorts of silly things.  All it takes for you to be Notable is for sources to take note of you. So, someone CAN become notable for something that occurs on Wikipedia... if sources take note of it.  It won’t happen often... but it can happen. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, part of what we tell people who are trying to get a fringe-related article published is to get noticed by reliable sources. Here's an example of this sort of thing happening. Makes our job harder when they do this sort of thing, but I can imagine the way that the article would develop now would be "... is a paleontologist who in 2016 began to argue against evolution and in favor of creationist points. A fellow the Discovery Institute, he achieved a level of media fame after his Wikipedia biography was deleted after community consensus determined that he did not fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Subsequent complaints promoted by the Discovery Institute's public relations team were picked up by Haaretz and the Christian News Network."

However, this seems to be something of a flash in the pan. They must be really excited to have gotten Haaretz's notice. But the penetration beyond that seems rather pitiable.

jps (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Deep trance identification
Some new fringey material added to this already fringe-heavy article. An unsourced mention of someone called "Gilligan" leads me to suspect the involvement of somebody who recently had their own page deleted on notability grounds. This should be AfD'd unless better / more sources are forthcoming. Seems to just be promoting one book. Famous dog   (c) 07:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * AfD is just not going to happen: once I started searching for the phrase in books, it was pretty clearly laid out (unlike the woo-buzzword salad of the article). It's a hypno-therapeutic technique of imagining yourself as another person (see here which has escaped into the self-improvement wild to become a way to "steal" the skills of some mentor whom you don't really have. You can learn to play golf or make a lot of money, apparently. It seems to originate from Milton Erickson and is connected to the whole neurolinguistic programming mess. The best we can hope for here is some woo-free assessment of this stuff, and, well, translating the article into ordinary English so people have any idea what it's really about. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

viXra
There's some discussion over at WikiProject Mathematics about the article on viXra. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A flat-Earther’s plan to launch himself in a homemade rocket has been postponed -- again
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/27/a-flat-earthers-plan-to-launch-himself-in-a-homemade-rocket-has-been-postponed-again/

Key quotes:

"Theories discussed during the interview included NASA being controlled by round-Earth Freemasons and Elon Musk making fake rockets from blimps."

" 'John Glenn and Neil Armstrong are Freemasons. Once you understand that, you understand the roots of the deception.' "

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... according to our List of Freemasons, Neil Armstrong was never a Freemason. Perhaps the rocket fellow has him confused with Buzz Aldren.  Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If this guy gets another article of this length about him he might actually pass WP:ANYBIO and end up with an article. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have to admit, that Elon Musk fellow sure is good at making a blimp look like a rocket. I was totally fooled! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking for assistance with an article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It probably deserves a mention in the section Flat Earth.
 * And I'm continually amazed at how often mainstream media is clueless about the concept we know as Deny recognition.
 * Personally, I have to wonder if he's really a flat-earth convert as he claimed. If I was a hobby rocket enthusiast, as he appears to be, and wanted to fund my project to build and launch a home-made manned rocket, and had already failed one Kickstarter effort, I might consider tapping a population of true believers willing to donate to a cause. Maybe his "conversion" is more of an ends-justify-the-means kind of thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Eccentric Jesus theorist bios
In cleaning up after someone stuck the Jesus Wife Fragment into a bunch of irrelevant places, I've come across a collection of bios of people who wrote popular books with various more-or-less fringey theories on Christian origins, particularly attached to the Jesus bloodline notion, though there are a few "Paulianity" people too. As far as I can tell, that's what these people are known for, because with a couple of exceptions for people who wrote their book earlier, the bios appeared shortly after their books were published. The bios, however, consistently read like supposedly notable academics who happened to write a book on the side. So I'm looking at the following:
 * James Tabor wrote The Jesus Dynasty
 * Jeffrey Bütz wrote The Secret Legacy of Jesus
 * Barrie Wilson was a co-author of The Lost Gospel: Decoding the Ancient Text that Reveals Jesus' Marriage to Mary the Magdalene
 * Hugh J. Schonfield wrote The Passover Plot
 * Hyam Maccoby wrote The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity among a bunch of similar works; he also shows up as a antisemitism expert
 * Robert Eisenman wrote James the Brother of Jesus; he also is a DSS guy and got involved in the Talpiot tomb mess, so he doesn't fit the pattern as much as the others

The last two guys are probably always going to have their own articles. The others, I'm not so sure. Most of them seem primarily notable as authors of these controversialist works. Is there cause for merging them back into those articles? Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Schonfield certainly deserves his own article. He was one of the original Dead Sea Scrolls team members and has written over 40 books. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ack, I forgot that—what comes of posting during lunch. OTOH The Passover Plot is largely devoid of reaction other than the word "controversial". Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tabor has written other widely discussed books, like the one on Waco. There was a German TV show based on Butz's books, which probably helps him meet notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User creating articles on countless Theosophy books
See the recent article Thought-Forms (book), it may look scholarly from a first glance, but most of the sources are from Theosophical books and it reads like promotion. There is also Occult or Exact Science?, How Theosophy Came to Me, Whence, How and Whither, a Record of Clairvoyant Investigation (all of the sources are Theosophical), From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan, The Occult World, K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. The same pattern here, all created by the same editor. There are others.

Another example, The Esoteric Character of the Gospels, Philosophers and Philosophicules etc. Basically if you strip these articles down there would be only a handful of reliable neutral sources that discuss these books. The user making these articles SERGEJ2011 only edits in relation to Theosophy, I suspect this user is associated or works for the Theosophical Society Adyar. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't had a chance to look yet, but are these book reviews of probably non-notable books? or discussions of probably non-notable ideas from within these books?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"are these book reviews of probably non-notable books"

Book reviews? I think you did not notice the years of publications in some of these books. One dates to 1901, another to 1886, etc. They are over a century old. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There have been quite a few theosophy related periodicals over the years. If they have done book reviews (and I don't know anything there one way or another) and if reviews in such publications are sufficient to establish notability (I don't know anything there either) then there probably isn't much we can do about the articles existing, although we might tell others to look in outside sources for views outside the belief system in question.


 * Personally, I would love to see a lot more articles on the essential books of most major belief systems, as such separate articles can go into greater depth about the important but sometimes minor points of doctrine. They might however be really problematic if those points of doctrine relate specifically to theories which were them or are now counted as fringey. I'm not sure exactly where in such cases the mainstream refutation material should be placed. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The same user is creating more and more Theosophical articles that contain little to no criticisms and mostly source to Theosophy sources. Here is his latest Christianity and Theosophy. Yet this user gets away with it, no other users or moderators are actually checking what he is writing. There is a serious NPOV issue here but I am not going to go on about it. Nobody seems to care here. Just let the guy create 1 million fringe Theosophy articles then. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * His articles creations like this: The Esoteric Character of the Gospels are not notable. What academics have reviewed this publication? The entire article is sourced to obscure Theosophy publications, some of which cannot be checked so we have no idea if what he has written is accurate or not. He does the same on every article he creates, yet nobody seems to have picked up on this apart from me. I thought new article creations are supposed to be checked? This is not a good thing. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Lol this user is using this Theosophy wiki as a valid source and quoting from it in several of his articles. I am amazed nobody has picked up on this. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

His recent article Christianity and Theosophy cites:

Ellwood R. S. (16 August 2011). "Bailey, Alice Ann Latrobe Bateman". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017. ———— (November 2000). "Christian Ritual in Theosophical Perspective". Quest. Theosophical Society in America. 88 (6): 225–227. Retrieved 26 October 2017. ———— (7 April 2012). "Christianity, Theosophical Approaches to". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017. ———— (2012-03-15). "Leadbeater, Charles Webster". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017.

The "Theosopedia" is not a reliable source. It is a public wiki used by Theosophists that contains little to no reliable sources. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

SERGEJ2011 has been adding the Theosopedia reference to a number of articles,. They should all be removed. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to previous conversations visible on his user talk page,, possibly among others, have discussed this with him before, including apparently once one of the books you mention above. I can and do think that at least some of them possibly qualify as notable, and will make an attempt in the next few days to find sources. However, I would also welcome input on his opinion about whether a recurrent behavioral problem might be involved here. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think there are copyvio issues. EG Thought-Forms (book) seems to have a lot copied from one source. which was also used for Christianity and Theosophy. No time right now but it needs to be cleaned up and rev/del'd. Doug Weller  talk 17:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * you found some in January and warned him. Doug Weller  talk 17:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The overlap is all quotations, not strictly copyvio, but perhaps excessive use of non-free content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thoughtforms uses about 620 words of quotation (actually that may include text not in quotes, see my comments on the next article). I remember Maggie saying we about 240 words was acceptable, and clearly over 600 is not acceptable (at least that's my firm opinion) and is probably overuse of a source. At Christianity and Theosophy I see that our article says (note I'm using brackets to make it clear what is actually being quoted)
 * [Besant named this esoteric knowledge the Greater Mysteries. The Lesser Mysteries meant the partial uncovering of the deep truths that must first be assimilated before entry into the Greater Mysteries. And Greater Mysteries can only be passed on "'from mouth to ear' as a pupil becomes qualified."] and the source says
 * [Besant calls this occult knowledge the Greater Mysteries. Written teaching is the Lesser Mysteries meant to partially unveil deep truths that must first be mastered before entry into the Greater Mysteries is possible. And Greater Mysteries can only be passed on from mouth to ear as a pupil becomes qualified.]
 * Changing a few words doesn't make it not copyvio. I suspect that there is a lot of this - straight copyvio, very close paraphrase and overuse of quotations. I'm not sure what to do about this, it would be a lot of work to go through and fix it paragraph by paragraph, and remember for my comments I've only looked at one source, Earwig shows apparent issues with multiple sources. Doug Weller  talk 20:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In SERGEJ2011's edit summaries when he creates some of these Theosophy articles he sometimes says they are "translated" from the Russian. I have noticed some of his spelling looks like it is poor translation from a Russian source. Is he copying these entire articles from a Russian website or Wiki? 117.20.41.10 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It might be worth checking the Russian Wikipedia. Serge identifies as Russian and a Theosophist on his user-page. He might be copying material from Russian Wikipedia Theosophy articles. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is a good chance or certainty of copyvios, maybe ANI or, alternately, ask him to set up future changes in draft space for someone else to review for copyvios or language before adding to mainspace? John Carter (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Should our article on the Epoch Times mention its fringe material?
See Talk:Epoch Times. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Mind you I was a bit shocked to see it used as so many China related articles, including BLPs, considering that it hates the Chinese government. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering the lack of freedom of the press in China freedom house report China 2017 (note there are issues also for Western outlets in China and commercial companies such as Google etc.) relying on dissident external press is required for NPOV/IS - even when they are published by people with some fringe views - it is either this or a regime mouthpiece.Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. But we'd like to cite a reliable andobjective source) as making the observation that "the Epoch Times frequently covers fringe topics and conspiracy theories, such as UFOs, chemtrails, and parapsychology"...or something like that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Facial toning


Someone mentioned this on the WP:RDS. A quick look suggests to me they're right to be concerned e.g. Facial toning may not only be beneficial as a means of remaining looking youthful from the additional oxygen and nutrients supplied by the blood reaching the facial tissues but may also positively affect the functions of the sensory organs, (the eye, ears, nose and tongue) from increased stimulation of the neural pathways within the cranial nerve of the human brain that affect the sensory systems. Some of the sources for the overall article at least look to be peer reviewed articles (although probably not MEDRS) but others are things like Chinese Holistic Health Practices, Daily Mail, Vogue Italy. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I pruned out the content based on rather blatant advertorial from shops selling the idea. What's left is shorter but I think establishes notability. Next challenge: find robust sources that analyse whether it actually works (or rather, usable sources showing that the absence of evidence that it does work, leads to a reasonable inference that it does not). Guy (Help!) 13:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV edits on Joseph Banks Rhine and other parapsychology articles
There is a current SPI open about this user but as he is promoting fringe theories I mention it here so people can monitor the article because I believe this will be on-going on other articles. The user in question Ben Steigmann is a psychic believer who argues that J. B. Rhine's experiments actually demonstrated clairvoyance and telepathy. He uploads his POV version of the article on his "Rhine Revival" account many times. He then deletes it knowing that his version will stay on the Wikipedia database. He then cites his Wikipedia edits as a 'valid' source on his anti-Wikipedia/pro-parapsychology research project on Wikiversity. His project claims practically all Wikipedia articles are wrong on parapsychology and that all psychics were basically genuine. He has also been doing this sort of thing on the Frederic W. H. Myers article recently, uploading huge chunks of fringe material and spam from his Wikiversity project and then removing it so it is still stored in the database and he can link to it. I have requested that his edits are striked and they are entirely removed from the database but this has not yet happened.

As this user is doing this on two parapsychology articles, it is likely he is doing it on others on different accounts. Has anyone noticed a similar pattern on any other articles? If you do it is likely the same person. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've revision deleted the repeatedly added, then deleted, content at Joseph Banks Rhine. Hope that helps — I'm frankly not sure if it perhaps needs an oversighter. And I've warned the account. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your help on this. The user has since turned up on another account and said he is not being confrontational with other users anymore but is now using this website for archive purposes. In other words he is using Wikipedia as a place to store his fringe material. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * He is now using his IP on the Frederic W. H. Myers talk-page claiming he has "refuted" the skeptics. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In regard to the removed edits on the Rhine article, he is complaining they have been "censored" . This is cross-wiki abuse, so I guess I will have to take that up at the correct avenue. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The checkuser results came back and he has been blocked on four accounts . I just reported Ben's cross-wiki abuse and socking on Wikiversity. A Wikiversity admin told me "Sorry, anonymous posts have no value in this discussion. Please move on." . This is very sad. So I guess the abuse will continue into the future. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you actually considered registering as a Wikipedia user? It is free of charge. Dimadick (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If I read the material over at the wikiversity talk page of the editor in question, over there seems to think that the IP is someone's sockpuppet, and the IP accuses the named editor of being a sockpuppeteer. Isn't love grand? John Carter (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Abd is a known parapsychology advocate and pseudoscience promoter. He has been banned on Wikipedia for sock-puppeting himself and disruption a few years ago. He is a personal friend of Steigmann, they both do a lot of edits in promoting paranormal material on Wikiversity, there seems to be no rules over there on content. He will go massive lengths to try and clear Ben's name. Abd claims that a group of 'skeptical' editors are out to 'target' Ben. Ben was banned on four socks recently, yet according to Abd I am 'harrassing' Ben and his sock-puppetry is 'harmless'. I guess spamming the J. B. Rhine article like Ben did is harmless then. Like I said this will continue long into the future. Ben will continue to spam his 'pro-paranormal' content from from his Wikiversity project onto Wikipedia. He does it every few months. He needs to be blocked on Wikiversity but nobody over there seems to be interested in this cross-wiki abuse. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I doubt anyone is interested but you can have you say here on the matter if you are, here. The reason I take this seriously is because this will not doubt happen again in the future. I will not be further responding. Abd who has been blocked on Wikipedia and elsewhere, is impossible to reason with. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I cannot access revdeleted edits to see their patterns. It seems that a lot of text is being copied. It would be interesting to know if those texts typically include common links which would suit for reporting at WT:WPSPAM for potential blacklisting... — Paleo Neonate  – 06:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Abd has defended Steigmann's sock-puppetry even claiming, when the time is "ripe", Steigmann should request an unblock request. Abd is now stalking and harassing several skeptical Wikipedia editors. On his personal website (which I wont link to here), he has posted slanderous statements and the full dox, and personal details of user ජපස. He has also done the same to several other skeptical users who used to edit Wikipedia. Outrageous behaviour. 117.20.41.9 (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Have you actually considered registering as a Wikipedia user? It is free of charge". No sorry, user Abd likes to stalk skeptical users and write deliberate lies and negative things about them on blogs and forums to damage peoples reputations. He also goes after peoples family members. He has a personal vendetta against anyone who is skeptical of cold fusion or parapsychology. I have tried to get him blocked on Wikiversity before for doxing people, he got some warnings for this but no action was taken against him. I am using proxy IPs to remain anonymous for safety reasons. I even requested for my previous one to be blocked. I will give this up for now, but when Steigmann sock-puppets again or decides to spam his fringe content in a few months I will report him again. There is a user called Manul who used to be excellent at finding Steigmann's socks but unfortunately he hasn't been active recently. 117.20.41.9 (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless someone wants to sanction the IP for personal attacks on the apparently banned Abd, who I think probably still shouldn't necessarily have been insulted (as it seems to me he was) by the IP above, I guess we can close this thread? John Carter (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP is largely correct about many problems that are happening. And I don't think the insistence that people register accounts is necessarily a good one because there aren't a lot of assurances that privacy can be kept (I know this from personal experience). Let this stay open for the normal length of time (twelve days) to see if this settles down. jps (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I applied ECP to the Rhine article, based on the fact that Bish actually had to revdel some of the abuse out. Also the IP is absolutely correct about Abd. He caused endless grief here for a very long time, his purpose on all Wikimedia projects is to reflect his personal idiosyncratic version of reality rather than the empirically established facts on which impartial observers agree. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * According to a discussion on Wikiversity (which I leave to you all to discover), the person behind the Rhine Researcher socks has declared their intention to dispense with the kind of disruption described above. Abd, interestingly, counseled against such behavior, so hopefully there won't be more happening over here. Unfortunately, it looks like Wikiversity continues to be used as an incubator for WP:RGW against the fringe. Don't know why the foundation tolerates that, but there you go. jps (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories in Turkey
An interesting new article that appears to require much work. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 00:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Max Loughan
I just noticed Articles for deletion/Max Loughan via the "Academics and educators" deletion-sorting list. Posting here on account of the claim he invented a free-energy gizmo out of "a coffee tin, two coils, a spoon and wire". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An unpowered RLC circuit that converts radio waves into direct current? Be still my beating heart! jps (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Dewey Lake Monster
Regional legend rendered sensational. I've trimmed back the crap somewhat, but it'll probably grow back quickly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Para-Austronesian" linguistic hypothesis
There are several articles in Wikipedia that descibe a hypothetical "para-Austronesian" language group, but these articles do not provide any references that describe it. Is it possible to find any reliable sources (outside of Wikipedia) that describe this hypothesis in detail? Jarble (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche
The Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche (Mapuche Ancestral Resistance, RAM) is an organization in Argentina that wants territories that they claim belonged to the Mapuche indigenous peoples, and who uses violence and vandalism to voice their protests. Some call them a terrorist organization, others prefer to use more politically correct terms. However, I'm having problems with some users that frequently add a fringe theory that says that the RAM does not exist, and that it would be just a big deception crafted by intelligence agencies in order to use political repression. I'm not misrepresenting the edits: see the current lead. And in support of this theory we have the senator Pino Solanas, a local priest, and some journalists. A deeper check shows that Solanas belongs to a minor left wing party, that got less than 1.5% of the vote in the previous primary elections and could not even run in the main elections (see here). The local priest is just that. And those "journalists" belong to unreliable sites with very poor reputation, such as "Página 12" or "La Vaca").

Real and noteworthy politicians do acknowledge the existence and actions of this group, such as the vicepresident, The Justicialist Party (the main party of the opposition), province governor Alberto Weretilneck (a province governor is an office analogous to that of a US state governor), the Chilean government, etc.

We may acknowledge the existence of this fringe theory, but in a lower section, treated as such, and confronted with the mainstream views. Not as it done now, that they cast doubts on the existence of the group everywhere. Cambalachero (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's been a couple of days and the user adding this has not taken part in the discussion, either here or at the article talk page (where John Carter agreed that the existence of the group is well established). Even more, Alejandro6 has been here, asked me for the right place to voice his opinions and made some other edits, but did not explain his edits anywhere. So I moved on and removed the fringe theory.


 * By the way, I also found this, the original manifest of the RAM, back in 2014. Even more, I also found this, the reaction of Página 12 in 2014 when the RAM released this manifest. That source, that now says that the RAM is some kind of deception from the government, did not say the same back then. Cambalachero (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC


 * Hi. I did wrote here a couple days ago, I just wasn't aware of how I had to do it. Ok, first of all, my edit of the article was based not on my opinion on the subject, but it consisted on make it as closest on info and direction to the version in spanish as I can. Pagina 12 is not a very poor reputation site, but the neswpaper where the most important journalists of Argentina worked in the last 30 years (and the link to the 2014 aricle of Pág 12 you found stats the unusual and doubtful nature of all this right from the title). There is many contributors to the spanish version of the article, not just me, and many other sources too; I think user Cambalachero 's edits reflects their own political view of the subject; Either he is right, an all of the contributors -not just myself- to the spanish version of the article are wrong, or visceversa.(Briefly, the ram itself is a fringe, the whole mapuche comunity denounce that to be investigated, cause the gov whitout prove of their existence present them to the press as representative of them, so they can criminalize any mapuche protest against the sell of their lands to privates, i.e. Benetton. This week a police unit on an illegal land eviction opened fire on a mapuche family and murdered one, of course none of them was armed. the Comission of Human Rights is investigating all this right now.)I'll invite other users to this discussion, I just dont't know if they speak english. Regards. Alejandro6


 * So, you are basically saying that we should report that the RAM does not exist because another wikipedia does so. Well, Wikipedia itself (any of them) is not a reliable source, and can not be used as a precedent for verifiability. That's because anyone may edit an article and insert any fringe theory in it. And that counts double for the article of the RAM in wikipedia in Spanish, as one of those users is... you!
 * I have also noticed this and this, an inappropiate form of canvassing (and note that Wikipedia in Spanish has a similar policy, so your action would have not been allowed there either) Cambalachero (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought that what was I supposed to do, to bring the other contributors so this is not personal vs personal view; But ok... what I'm saying, again, is ram does not exist because there is No proves of his existence...and if you are argentine, you know that false flag illegal operations by intelligence services is habitual, a few months ago in the protest march for Santiago Maldonado case in buenos aires I saw a police group dress as civilians, screaming anarquia(¿?) then breaking cameras of those journalists who doesn't support the gob (here a link to a right wing journalist talking about this, not an oppositor of the gov) ; it happened since the 70's (e.g. alfredo astiz); So far there is 2 dead people, at least one murdered by police men and NOT A SINGLE PROVE of an armed mapuche guerrilla...this idea could be pretty laughable if there wasn't people murdered. Here, a deputy, not an oppositor but a member of the actual government, is scandalized and worried about all this:[] Is this enough for you? What you are doing should not be allowed. alejandro6 (talk)


 * Of course that you can call other people, but not the way you did it. Not calling people who support your point of view, and asking them to support you. And, before you continue crying that "there is no proof", you should reply to my previous post. There you have the RAM manifest, the RAM itself announcing their existence and intentions. Besides, like any fringe theory, this one falls in pieces once you check it just a bit. Question 1: the RAM became noteworthy for the press during the Maldonado case, but they have been active since 2014. Back then, the president was not Macri, but Cristina Kirchner. Does this mean that this alleged plot to make the mapuches be seen as criminals was arranged by Kirchner? Question 2: What about the Coordinadora Arauco-Malleco? What about the Mapuche conflict? Is that supposed to be another forgery? Cambalachero (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you are getting agressive now. (Cry?). You please indicate me how to call other people, I called 2 of the main editors of the article because of the sources they used. However you just made it clear what is this all about, you are defending your political party view (which is dangerous and racist) by bringing the macri vs. kirchner stuff that has nothing to do here. For the last time, where do you have a proof (cause the government doesn't) that there is a mapuche armed guerrilla instead of a fringe of the intelligence service? Mapuches barely can buy shoes. RAM manifest? done by who? Give me a link to any confiscated fire wheapons by the law, or any report of the true identities of those 5 masked big guys that set fire right in front of the police, then walking to a truck and leaving with the police not even trying to arrest them. Of course it started under C. Kirchner government; that's why many organizations standed against of implementation of Proyecto X, there is even an article here, just go read it []. Me and other users did posted links to interviews and declarations of real representants of Mapuche communities giving their full names speaking about all this, (besides deputies -not even leftists, god help us...), journalists and the bishop of bariloche) not some wiki entry -about chilean events ¿?- as you are bringing. Here is the Major of Bariloche talking about this, he doesn't know about the ram nor think any incident had to do with it, However I think it's useless to explain you anything, cause you are doing propaganda (a dangerous one, being already a murdered mapuche 3 days ago) here, and you should be banned by vandalism. (Edit, just on more link that you will surely ignore, another deputy claims RAM is a made-up enemy; Alejandro6


 * In English, the word "cry" is not only for sheding tears ("llorar"), but also for shouting and yelling. Of course that not all mapuches are members of the RAM, as that mayor said. Similarily, it is frequently pointed in the US that not all muslims are related to islamic terrorism. However, that doesn't mean that islamic or mapuche terrorism does not exist. The mayor is not saying that, you are misquoting him. María Soria is saying that, all right, but you are correct, we'll ignore her. Keep on reading, she says that it's all part of a conspiracy to conceal news from the press, and when someone voices a conspiracy theory, it does not matter who is her. Cambalachero (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If you (as well as the law) think there is an illegal fact or organization going on you most prove it, (specially if there is a murdered involved) not the other way around. Still you (or the government) don't have a prove that any Mapuche killed anyone, nor there is an armed mapuche gueriilla in Argentina(btw if you honestly believe such delusional thing I don't think this conversation can go any further). The one real fact so far is that gendarmerie murdered one mapuche 3 days ago (and we still don't know what happened to Santiago Maldonado. And, the we'll ignore her about the link to the deputy I posted, I want to know who is WE, and why you are unable of doing your vandalism on the spanish section of the same article on wikipedia as you are doing here. Alejandro6


 * proposal Move this discussion to the talk page of RAM. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

it's ok with me to move it; I would prefer not to do it myself to prevent mistakes, I'm still not entirely familiar with wikipedia functions. To Cambalachero, you said it, when someone voices a conspiracy theory, it does not matter who is her. that's exactly what you, part of argentinean gov. and some press are doing. That's my point. Alejandro6

barcus I just copied the discussion into the Talk of the article; do I delete it from here? Thanks Alejandro6

C. Johan Masreliez
Articles for deletion/C. Johan Masreliez.

I also submitted Masreliez's theorem for CSD.

jps (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If someone has time, it might be helpful to see which of these Special:Contributions/Ferrofield need to be reverted/changed. jps (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Åke Gerhard Ekstrand looks kind of iffy on notability grounds, and at the very least needs a thorough copy-editing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, this edit to Andrew Guinand added a heap of copyvio, which I've cleaned up. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps not surprisingly, I've filed a new SPI report: Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurtan~enwiki. jps (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no association to the account in question. I only voted at that AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, since we know that the account that created these associated articles is Swedish, suffers from WP:Source counting, and has engaged in prodigious sockpuppetry, I feel that there is enough evidence to investigate anyway. jps (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What evidence? An simple IP check will show that I have no association to that account whatsoever. BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I outlined the concerns. It is entirely possible that you are innocent and that this is just a series of coincidences. On the other hand, we have been burned in past deletion discussions with serial sockpuppetting (see Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem, Articles for deletion/Masreliez and the associated SPIs linked on the page in question). jps (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am completely innocent. No assocation to that sock. Seems the only connection is that I vote usually Keep in AfDs and that I voted at an AfD associated to the sock. No concrete evidence. All I am saying is that starting SPI investigations without evidence is time consuming and distressing for the inncoent party.BabbaQ (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, !voting !keep with problematic rationales that are rehashing of previous rationale given by other sockpuppeting accounts is time-consuming. The reason this is an "investigation" rather than a conviction is because we don't know what the situation is. Third parties will make the determination and this will all be over in a matter of days. Wikipedia is a time sink because we really don't have good protections against the sort of problems that having content curated by pseudonymous editors causes. You've made your case, I've made mine, let's let others look into the situation, okay? jps (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The only reason for SPI nom me is that I !voted Keep in that specific AfD. Had I !voted Delete this wouldnt have been raised. Make your own conclusion. Anyway this will lead nowhere so lets end this discussion. Bye.BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let the record show that the SPI as expected was closed with no indication that I was involved. BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Administrators%27_noticeboard. Wikipedia is so much fun, y'all. I love the fact that banned users can recreate articles but admins are like, "No, it's different this time!". WP:ROLLEYES. jps (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Theorem
How exciting!

Articles for deletion/Masreliez's theorem.

jps (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I know this stuff is tiresome, but right now we're running into a rather milquetoast discussion about whether this theorem is worthy of having an entire article in Wikipedia. The fringe-connection is purely biographical as far as I can tell, but this does strike me as a rather obscure and not-particularly-worthy-of-inclusion article as it stands. How does one make it better? The weak keepers are not saying. Can anyone else help add some clarity to this discussion? jps (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bill Warner (Political Islam)
Warner (aka Bill French) also runs something called The Center for Political Islam. What makes him fringe, I think, is his pseudoscientific statistical method that he thinks shows the truth about Islam. I hope one of these sources mentions it, I can't recall if I copied the url or not. See. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Fringe science alert for Adam's Bridge
The Discovery Channel's "What on Earth" has a broadcast coming that people are trying to use to prove that Adam's Bridge was built by Rama. This is going to be a big deal for Hindu nationalists. I can't find much on "What on earth" except this. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted.S.Swamy's observations are usually always BS and I would be surprised if he had not commented on the issue! I will, though, try to catch the broadcast:) Winged Blades Godric 15:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved the "Evidence" section's contents down to the "Controversies" section. Since the entire contents of that section were about the controversial upcoming show and there was no actual evidence discussed, this seemed the best place for it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Paul Craig Roberts
I don't deal with fringe topics that often, so I would appreciate a second opinion on whether the subject is notable or not. The article relies on the subject's own website to a large extent and is a subject of current edit warring. I'm wondering if AfD is the way to go here. Please also see:
 * Talk:Paul_Craig_Roberts

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Macrobiotics - heads up
I've been getting a stream of slightly pestering emails from an (unindentified) individual wanting me to recuse myself editing from this article, and this prompted me to have a fresh sweep for sources in case we were missing anything substantial. Imagine my surprise when this turned up this book in which I play an (unwitting) bit part! Our article probably could be fuller, and with this kind of activism going on Macrobiotic diet might be an article that fringe-savvy editors could usefully add to their watchlists. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you quoted or named in the book? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on page 7 (using Amazon's "Look inside"). But it's not just me ... apparently the whole of Wikipedia is working to suppress The Truth&trade; on a variety of topics including GMOs and Homeopathy! Alexbrn (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can trump that. Deepak Chopra once gave me a shout out on one of his youtube videos !! -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I used to get a christmas card every year from Michael Winner, after he insulted me in his Times column. I have also been subject to incoherent rants from Dana Ullman, and (of course!) by Lynne McTaggart, the "viciously, viciously anti-vaccine" editor of What Doctors Don't Tell You (you can probably guess why they don't tell you it just from the title). Pretty sure Sheldrake took a pop, too. What they all have comon is the idea that I am a militant skeptic who came to Wikipedia to enforce scientism. It's actually precisely the opposite way round: I was unaware of organised skepticism until I was already an admin here and started dealing with articles relating to quackery. Obviously now I have met Edzard Ernst, Simon Singh, Marsh and many others, but I did not even know who they were when the accusations started flying. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jodie Marsh I hope. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP, surpressing the Truth&trade;? Nevah! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't link to garbage propaganda sites as if they had anything to add (to save everyone the click, it's Discovery Institute's Wikipedia whingefest page. --Calton | Talk 08:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, that was the point/what makes it interesting. Supressing Truth&trade; is important WP-work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair,, it is fucking hilarious! The Discotute is fascinating. They try to be sane, to be taken seriosuly, but their arguments are functionally indistinguishable from those of David Icke or whale.to, when you peel away the faux-scholarly language. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You may enjoy these from Haaretz more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it´s an SPS, so it´s not much we can do (except stand by for activism, of course). At a (long) stretch, I guess you could put it at Wikipedia in blogs if you like ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, even the Bill Shurtleff stuff I was involved in made it on the same page even. This person seems to get around Wikipedia at least, so probably best to keep an eye on the broad topic too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Hochberg
According to all standard genealogical and as far as I can tell all biographical sources, Alexander Hochberg died on 22 February 1984. We seem to have a busy little beaver who asserts that he was a collective of secret agents who lived until 18 October 1988. The article seems to be a mass of false statements, probably on behalf of the busy little beaver, who asserts that "the false Alexander" adopted one Max Heelein, who "inherited his titles". The article needs to be reverted back, I think, to a version before this bizarre editing started. I only noticed this when changes were made to Daisy, Princess of Pless to add the false death date and history. I've reverted that, but further advice on the Alexander Hochberg article would be appreciated. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * : I rolled it back and applied pending changes, and warned the user. WWvH strongly suggests von Hochberg as a name, but whether that is real or the user is a collective of spies I could not say. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent plan, thanks for formulating it and putting it into execution. He reinserted a bit of nonsense at Daisy, Princess of Pless, though I don't know if it was before or after you warned him. I've rolled that back again. - Nunh-huh 09:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * PC doesn't affect WWvH who has reinstated their edit. Doug Weller  talk 13:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31h, to get his attention. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer
This is a boring subject, but it looks like gatekeepers believe that the lazy reporting of mutual settlement is the only thing we should say about the lawsuit that ended last year. We, of course, all know that the long con is long, but it does the reader no good to not indicate that the "settlement" as it was, entailed Rossi "walking away" from the lawsuit (the source says as much). jps (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC) for an argument. jps (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should not be surprised that these scammers are still up to their tricks. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Constructal law


This is a "law" proposed by Adrian Bejan that appears to have no currency outside his close circle. The article is blatant WP:SYN. I have nominated for deletion, but others may be sufficiently aware of the theory to be able to turn it into a neutral article that accurately reflects its status (if indeed it has any). Guy (Help!) 09:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, while "constructal law" is, as the physicists say, "not even wrong", articles about it have sometimes been used as a citation for less controversial statements, so don't get too over-enthusiastic in pruning. I reverted and substituted a better ref on animal locomotion and propulsion for the uncontroversial statements that propulsion is due to imparting momentum to the environment. By all means prune, this "law" is pure fringe, just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. HCA (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Better refs is good. Any paper that focuses on pushing a fringe view, even if 90% of the paper is uncontroversial, is a poor ref, IMO. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Global International Scientific and Analytical Project


Bluntly, this looks bogus to me, and I have AfD'd it, but that could be my bias. Please review. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Found it on an archive copy of Beall's list here. I also found this, which is not RS but interesting nonetheless. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you think I found it, Boris? ;-) See User:JzG/Predatory. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, do you expect me to actually read the AfD and stuff before mouthing off with my half-assed opinion? That's just not the way we do things here on Wikipedia. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery
has re-sprouted. Quite apart from anything else, what I wonder is "homeopathic surgery" ? Alexbrn (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You bet me to it :). Well it is a real thing, sadly, that is really regulated by a government body. I merged it with Central Council of Homoeopathy, which it was originally redirected to. Work may need to be done on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the British notion of surgery, not American, I presume. See here - If a British Doctor Invites You to ‘Surgery,’ Should You Be Worried?. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the section but has no specific idea about surgery.I also note that per this source, there is a Bachelor of Siddha Medicine and Surgery:) On some more searching, there exists Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery, Bachelor of Naturopathy Medicine and Surgery and Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery too! Winged Blades Godric 15:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And AFAIK, we, in India, don't use the word surgery in it's British meaning. Winged Blades Godric 16:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comic relief. jps (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dara O'Briain vs homeopathy --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

From the Arizona Republic (Phoenix, Arizona), Wednesday, July 18, 2007:


 * "A homeopathic doctor was suspended Tuesday for his role in a botched liposuction operation earlier this month that resulted in the death of the patient.


 * A state regulatory board deemed Dr. Greg Page a 'clear and present danger to the public.'


 * Page performed the liposuction procedure on July 3 at the Anthem office of Dr. Peter J. Normann, whose practice was restricted by the state in May after two other liposuction patients suffered cardiac arrest on the operating table and died.


 * Normann, who provided follow-up care in the July 3 surgery, was suspended last week, and both doctors are awaiting hearings with an administrative judge, who can revoke their licenses or reinstate them.


 * Page’s suspension by the Arizona Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners followed a half-hour executive session and an hour of questioning. Page took part by phone.


 * Under state law, homeopaths may do 'minor surgery,' and Dr. Bruce Shelton, president of the Arizona Homeopathic and Integrative Medical Association and former president of the Homeopathic Board, said whether liposuction can be considered minor surgery 'is a huge gray area.'


 * 'In my opinion, it (liposuction) is best left to plastic surgeons,' he said.


 * Dr. Garry Gordon, a member of the homeopathic board who practices in Payson, focused his questioning on the medications Page used during the procedure. Page said there was nothing out of the ordinary, but acknowledged that he did not know whether the patient had taken pre-surgical vitamins and minerals, as normally required.


 * No one on the homeopathic board asked whether liposuctions fall within the range of procedures that a homeopath is licensed to do. Chris Springer, executive director of the board, declined to comment on the matter because she is not a doctor, and the three doctors on the board also declined to comment.


 * The patient that Page treated who died, identified only as LR, was a 250-pound woman who was having liposuction done on her thighs. It took about five hours, and Page left the premises an hour later, about 7 p.m., the medical board report said.


 * Normann stayed behind while the patient awaited a ride. He tried to rouse her from sleep at 9:50 p.m., was unable to do so, and 911 was called at about 10:10 p.m. The patient later died at the John C. Lincoln Deer Valley Hospital.


 * Page, a licensed homeopath since 2005, told the homeopathic board he considered the patient fine when he left.


 * 'She was in a condition where I would have discharged her to her ride,' he said."

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Am I alone in being horrified by the idea that a homeopath would consider themselves qualified to conduct surgery? They don't even accept germ theory (infection control, anyone?) and their study of anatomy is tied to the refuted concept of miasms. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am equally horrified that he was suspended by the Arizona Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners -- a group of homeopaths regulating other homeopaths. Anyone who performs surgery should have accusations of misbehavior judged by actual (as in M.D.) surgeons. From [ https://homeopath.az.gov/about ]:


 * "Homeopathic and Integrated Medicine license scope includes the practice of acupuncture, chelation, homeopathy, minor surgery, neuromuscular integration, nutrition, orthomolecular therapy, and pharmaceutical medicine (see A.R.S. § 32-2901(22)). Physicians under this license who intend to dispense general, homeopathic or nutritional medications, substances or devices from an office, must apply for and receive a dispensing permit."


 * Interesting that we have articles on all of those except neuromuscular integration. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Aron K. Barbey ‎
The article on Aron Barbey is an obvious autobiography, edited by himself and IP addresses from his university. The only other edits have been removing obvious puffery - and even then, there's precious little else in the article. What caught my eye is the fact that he's associated with a Frontiers journal, and promulgates a field called "Nutritional Cognitive Neuroscience", which was linked in his autobiography not to a Wikipedia article but to a journal article in Frontiers. Virtually all the cites in the article are primary references to his won work, and most of those are in the Frontiers journal he edits. Which is a massive red flag.

So, I suspect we have a woo-monger here, but I don't know whether the article needs to be nuked, or expanded to cover reality-based critique, if any exists. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is borderline Men who stare at goats sort of research (not quite as bad as that, but following the tradition) that the US government pushes around. Nutriceuticals? That's very dodgy. Still, the guy's won millions of dollars to study this stuff. Makes me think a bit less of IARPA. jps (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Abd is stalking and attacking you both on his blog in regard to Aron Barbey. He has done the same on about 5 other articles of his. . He was banned on Wikipedia yet he is still active on Wiki-media projects. Can this guy get banned for this? The Wikimedia foundation should be informed about his harassment. 82.132.217.30 (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is surprised. Abd is obsessive. He even got banned from RationalWiki because they got bored with him. Not seeing any evidence of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry here though. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Abd just requested a global lock for the above IP address I used . He is clearly abusing the Meta-Wiki website. 82.132.220.14 (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted a contribution by him, I assume, yesterday, and he’s more than doubled the size of his autobiography today. When I get home, (I’m at the vet), I shall enjoy reverting again. My paws can’t cope on this ipad. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Deuterium-depleted water
Promoted by charlatans to chemotherapy patients, but, as the article notes, "Research on the effects of deuterium-depletion on living cells has been very limited with less than a dozen peer-reviewed research papers available via PubMed in mid-2011". Which is not WP:SYN at all, oh no. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I nixed the PopSci blog with its overblown health claims as a source. The journal article I substituted isn't great, but it deals with physical properties and doesn't jump to health-related conclusions&mdash;and it's only used to substantiate the use of "light water" as a (confusing) synonym for deuterium-depleted water anyway.  (It's surprisingly difficult to find a non-crap source for this point, which leaves me strongly inclined to believe that the "light water" moniker is principally a marketing move by the aforementioned charlatans.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Better, thanks. It would be good to find sources critiquing the quackery, but it seems very fringe at the moment. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Collins (writer)
Recently created over a redirect, appears to be about a new age fringe writer. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Creation Museum
Recent persistent removal of WP:PSCI material, I have to leave so additional watchlisters welcome. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * On my watch list now. User:2600:1:9185:BF78:8023:EAFB:A27:CB5A was blocked for 18 hours. Perhaps that is enough to discourage him. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Overton window again
May I please ask for some participation at Talk:Overton window. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Fringe theory of the week: Square dancing was a racist hoax funded by Henry Ford to get white people to stop dancing to black music
https://boingboing.net/2017/12/08/dr-pappy-shaw.html

http://www.save-squaredancing.com/history.htm

Alternative theory: The Slave Roots of Square Dancing

https://daily.jstor.org/the-slave-roots-of-square-dancing/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)

Talk:Cold fusion
A new/IP user has brought three sources they claim indicate continuing research in cold fusion/LENR from NASA. Unfortunately the sources themselves don't identify themselves as being cold fusion/LENR papers. They have been making strenuous arguments in favor of inclusion on the basis that they are continuing Pons's and Fleischman's research despite these sources not citing or acknowledging Pons or Fleischman anywhere. This seems like a clear case of WP:SYN but other editor's opinions are requested. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really a new user. Organiclies has already tried exactly this maneuver, in July 2016. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

How American fundamentalist schools are using Nessie to disprove evolution
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13062835.How_American_fundamentalist_schools_are_using_Nessie_to_disprove_evolution/

Key quote:

"Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They never cease to delight. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wolfgang Pauli's famous observation seems to apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

At least the claim that a Japanese whaling boat once caught a dinosaur sounds legit.



--Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The Plesiosauria are not considered Dinosaurs. Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This reminds my of a conversation I read a while back. Someone was commenting on Disney's animated Hunchback of Notre Dame movie, complaining that it didn't get the medieval catholic concept of "sanctuary" right, and someone replied "You have a problem with that, but not with the talking bats?" :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are three gargoyles in the film, but no talking bats. And there are actually plenty of things the film got wrong about the characters from the original novel. In the novel, Claude Frollo is an Archdeacon who is struggling to keep his celibacy oath, while actually overcome with passion. In the Disney film, Frollo is a judge, and commands soldiers. In the novel, Captain Phoebus is a vain, untrustworthy rake, who uses his good looks to seduce and take advantage of women. He coldly observes the execution of Esmeralda (his would-be mistress) and does not lift a finger to help her. In the film, Phoebus is a hero with a heart of gold, and genuinely loves Esmeralda. Having seen the film after reading the novel, I was actually puzzled why they bothered to adapt a story they were not planning to follow. Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Had it not occurred to you that maybe Hugo got it wrong and Disney was just correcting the story? TFD (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Related observation: Over the years I have asked at least 50 different people the following questions: [1] Have you ever read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court? [2] How did it end? Most claimed that the read it many years ago in school, and not one could tell me how the story ended in the book. Mostly they told me how it ended in one of the film or TV adaptations. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One of these days, somebody's going to realize that there's an easy way to cheat. That being said, I refuse to actually cheat and will provide the (probably wrong) answer that there's a huge siege of a castle that the main character is in, and he and like ten guys kill all the attackers with guns and then get stuck in the dungeon where the Yankee falls asleep, not waking up until it's the "modern" day again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you remember anything about everyone else on the Connecticut Yankee's side dying and what killed them? (A plot detail that our article does not cover, BTW.) It's one of the most striking parts of the ending. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. I know there were three rows of electric fences and the damage they did to the attackers was a pretty important part of the end. I think Merlin died when he tripped and fell against the fence, but I don't remember everyone else dying of anything except (implied) natural causes, years after the Yankee fell asleep. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record: I also last read this shortly after high school. My dad had bought me this "library" that consisted of about 30 volumes which contained the greats from 19th century literature. Poe, Twain, Doyle, Haggard and more. It also had a couple volumes of Greek and Norse mythology. I used to love those books, but they fell apart years ago. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But Nessie lives on! SPECIFICO  talk  16:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In The original book by mark Twain, The electric fences killed so many of the knights that there were bodies piled all around the compound, and when those bodies began to rot, the air became so bad that it killed everyone in the compound except the Connecticut Yankee, who magically managed to return to modern times and tell the tail. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Checking now... And you're right. I didn't recall that bit at all. And apparently, Merlin was dancing with glee after putting the Yankee to sleep with his magic. (I'm quite sure Twain was highly aware of the irony of a malicious purveyor of superstitions being killed by an artifact of science.) And now, we should all go read it, since it's free and it's an American classic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's interesting is that nobody remembers that bit and that all of the people I have asked have seen at least on adaptation, none of which mentions the gas from rotting knights killing everyone. It demonstrates the plasticity of our memories. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You might be interested to know that I have never seen any film or television adaptation, unless you count Black Knight, the Martin Lawrence B-grade. I've also never read any homage to it, unless you count the Guardians of the Flame series, by Joel Rosenberg. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  07:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to spoil anybody's fun but I would point out that the article that kicked this discussion off is from 5 years ago and from a Scottish tabloid newspaper. Also it seems odd to ask whether dinosaurs live today, today of all days, on which we do our best to eat as many of them as possible. Anyway, I did a quick bit of Googling and, while I was saddened to see that the story does not seem to be a hoax (as I had hoped), it does seem that a quantum of the most basic sanity/dignity eventually prevailed as only one year later the ludicrous claim was dropped. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Zeno map
I've tried to explain to a new editor that this edit which uses as a source. Neither the site nor Thompson, whose book on the issue is self-published, are reliable. It might help if a second person explained it also. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Winged Blades Godric 14:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any good reason not to merge the map and Zichmni into Zeno brothers? Mangoe (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not. is convinced that Thompson is correct after doing his own OR and is still pushing this into  and . I;ve reverted him again but don't want to get into an edit war.  Doug Weller  talk 20:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Watchlisted.  He  iro 22:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Coast to Coast AM
See Talk:Coast to Coast AM. This has no criteria, few sources and is being used to publicse fringe. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Iben Browning
Incited panic with a failed earthquake prediction 30 years ago. Today there's an IP user edit warring to make our coverage of this pseudoscientist misunderstood genius fair. Need more outside opinions on it, because I'm "biased". Geogene (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Fringe theories from the government of Canada?
--Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.horizons.gc.ca/en/content/how-self-flying-sleighs
 * http://www.horizons.gc.ca/en/content/algorithms-in-the-north-pole
 * http://www.horizons.gc.ca/en/content/santa-claus-makes-it-big-with-bitcoin
 * http://www.horizons.gc.ca/en/content/santa-is-moving-to-the-south-pole
 * I haven't looked at those links, (they look a bit spammy), but does the last one refer to the loss of the Claus HQ caused by global warming melting the Arctic ice? Hardly a fringe theory I'd have thought. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 06:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New York Times goes gaga for UFOs
Oh dear. 

This one is going to be a pain. It's already beginning:.

We're going to need to figure out what to do about this. The times interviewed James Oberg and Sara Seager for the requisite "balance", but it's clear that this is some breathless newsroom editor ball-dropping.

jps (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course the Pentagon investigated UFOs. The sightings could have been enemy surveillance. A few idiots have decided that UFO means alien spacecraft, hence another round of lunacy. Unfortunately you get the strong impression that the "President" believes in the little green men and thinks he's going to get famous by being the one to blow the lid off the whole thing. As if anything like that could possibly be kept secret, especially in an age where virtually everybody has a high definition digital camera with them at all times. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "A few idiots have decided that UFO means alien spacecraft" If they were identified as spacecraft, then the "Unidentified" part of the definition would not apply to them. Dimadick (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this is largely a smokescreen. The idea is that the "unidentified" aspect allows for wild speculation on the part of those who want to believe, y'know? And apparently this is also Robert Bigelow's angle. Oh, what a billion dollars will do! jps (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the type of logic these people use: "we do not know what it is, therefore we do know what it is - aliens!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that the story is in the "politics" section of the paper. I was surprised to see Leslie Kean's byline included as one of the authors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The political angle is that a lot of the money allocated to fund the program went to company run by a good buddy (ie big donor) of Senator Harry Reid, and the buddy didn’t produce much in return for the funds (if you are going to take government money to search for UFOs... at least find some something to report... weather balloons or something). Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a less breathless discussion of the whole thing. . Unfortunately, in a few months when the analyses of more sober thinkers come through, the media and fly-by-nighters will have moved on and we'll get to clean up the details. jps (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Fun cocktail party conversation starter. "What is the relationship between Blink 182 and Budget Suites of America?" jps (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this NYT story has definitely re-energized some discussions in obscure UFO articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And here is a recently-created article heavily citing the NYT story: USS Princeton aerial object incident - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sheaffer is doing the Lord's work here: . jps (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Will somebody please tell me What is the relationship between Blink 182 and Budget Suites of America? Thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll need to attend the cocktail party to get the answer, Roxy. Meanwhile, this is being used as a primary source. It doesn't look independent to me. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed them. . jps (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Overbye on keeping your wits about you:. Sigh. jps (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But then, of course, there's the confirmation bias: . Sigh. jps (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia link to "reports" that are written as blogposts?
Talk:USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident

Proffer opinions, all.

jps (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is an EL that links to a breathless "you won't believe the cool stuff my buddy told me" story posted on an aviation fan site written by a movie producer who has coincidentally "signed with an agent to represent the sale of his debut novel, Lions in the Sky, a naval aviation thriller". But, you know, there are worse things. Like this mess that someone, probably me, will have to clean up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ajay Prabhakar - Ogham/Egyptian etc is Igbo
He has an article and an editor is pushing his stuff into Ikom Monoliths. See and  about a book on which he collaborated. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) The main author of the book is Catherine Obianuju Acholonu. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Main editors are SPA, so suspect either COI or paid editing. Sourcing is terrible at best, with several being press releases.  Feels very much like a hagiography.  Ravensfire  (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Trying to find out if some fringe books are reliably published
See WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Scientology
Moved to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt
An editor thinks the reception section violates NPOV because it is too negative towards his bogus claims. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cold fusion at Wikiversity
Update: The subjects of cold fusion and parapsychology, broadly construed, are now subject to a topic ban at Wikiversity. All resources related to these two topics are either pending deletion or have already been deleted. Any future work on these topics will be subject to pre-approval by our research review process. Any attempt to create new resources on these topics without pre-approval will result in speedy deletion. As an aside, v:User:Abd is currently blocked for long term disruption and v:User:Ben Steigmann is blocked for too many policy violations to enumerate here. If anyone notices activity at en-wv in violation of the topic bans and user blocks described above, the appropriate forum is v:Wikiversity:Request custodian action. --mikeu talk 00:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. This is the fringe nonsense that user:Abd was sanctioned for advocating here, leading to his eventual ban for block evasion.
 * please note that Wikiversity is separate from Wikipedia... and thus subject to its own (different) policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Abd has been harassing several wikipedia users and admins on his cold fusion website. He attacks Wikipedia again only yesterday, and stalks users here , he has also written thousands of words about his ban attacking Wikipedia admins . Despite being banned from Wikipedia. He is active on meta-wiki where he hosts a "study" that slanders skeptical Wikipedia users and incorrectly claims they are all the same banned person AngloPyramid, an old user he has a grudge against. He includes a bunch of different IP addresses, mostly unrelated that go back years and says they all the same person, he included your IP 82 and claims you are doing "cross-wiki disruption". I believe innocent people are caught up in Abd's study. I have complained to the Wikimedia Foundation but no action has yet been taken. I believe this guy should be globally banned.82.132.226.145 (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia and Wikiversity are separate projects... which means that we here at Wikipedia can't "globally ban" someone over there at Wikiversity. If you have complained to the WMF, you probably have done all you can do. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity or no, it should go. It's an abuse of WMF resources for web hosting. Also Abd's offsite outing of jps should qualify him for a siteban to go with his enWP ban. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 82.21.88.44 is there any chance you can confirm you are not me. You said you are emailing the Wikimedia foundation on Meta-Wiki. The situation has now got out of hand. Abd is now attacking you, JZG, myself and other Wikipedia users here making false statements . Abd should be blocked. Can an admin look at this? 82.132.223.81 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like there are multiple issues here that are being conflated: A deletion request at en-wv is the wrong venue for addressing #2 & #3, and the latter two concerns are not valid reasons covered in our policy for deleting a resource. This noticeboard is also not an appropriate venue for any of those three concerns. IMHO, cross-wiki and/or off-wiki issues should be brought up at meta. I am more than willing to discuss any concerns related to activity on wikiversity or other wikimedia sites. Feel free to ping me and point me to a talk page. I would like to respectfully request that this notice be closed as there is no reasonable action that an admin here could take against a user that is indef community banned. Also, it is contributing to contentious exchanges on my home project. --mikeu talk 21:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) A deletion request for Cold fusion
 * 2) Cross wiki user behavior (ie. at meta)
 * 3) User behavior on non-wikimedia sites
 * I think inasmuch as that resource refers to content that was and is published on Wikipedia, it is of relevance to this board. Since SUL is implemented, those with accounts here have accounts there, of course. I would encourage those who are upset about the situation to comment over there while respecting the policies and guidelines of the sister project. I see this as a reasonable venue to have a discussion about issues such as this. If not here, then where? jps (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do here about the free-for-all that is Wikiversity. I've never been convinced that the general public distinguishes between the different WMF projects, but that's another issue for another day. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually the issue is far from resolved but this section can probably be closed. Abd is now filing an undeletion request for an attack piece he wrote about different users here 82.21.88.44 this may interest you as Abd has confused you and myself on his study. I recommend that any further discussions about this now take place on Meta-Wiki. I will not further respond here. 82.132.247.16 (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Parapsychology at Wikiversity
The resource that was aping Wikipedia's cold fusion content has been apparently slated for deletion which is a very positive development, in my humble opinion. That's not the end of it, though, so I encourage those who are concerned about this kind of pseudoscience shuffling to comment at Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. jps (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To all, in general, please try to keep comments at en-wv confined to the scope of our local policy and avoid critiquing specific users as I stated in the notebox on the last RfD. Arguments that specifically detail content issues will be given much greater weight than those about the source of the contributions. That last RfD contained many irrelevant and off-topic comments (which were ignored in my close.) The activity in the last RfD caused difficulty for our staff as we try to improve the quality of our resources, which should be the sole goal of all such requests. Wikiversity is not a battleground for disputes that started elsewhere.


 * Also, we do not have the resources to handle multiple simultaneous requests at this time. If we see too much activity piling up in our community forums, later requests will be put on hold while we process them one at a time in a queue. While I stated that WV:Canvasing is not an official policy, our other guidelines and community norms give greater weight to both policy based reasoning and the input of long time productive contributors. The quality of the arguments are what matters; quantity, esp. if redundant, not so much.


 * Please approach these discussions with moderation and they will be respectfully considered. Our AGF and Civility are similar to here, but some of our other policies differ and those details can make an important difference in how these discussions close. If anyone has any questions about our processes I would be more than happy to explain in another venue. --mikeu talk 17:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy
Another article on Low field magnetic stimulation was recently merged to Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy and the final article also seems to refer to Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which is a technique that I am familiar with via psychological research (I've been zapped with TMS millions of times with no ill effects - but also no spectacular increase in "wellness" either!). This article now seems a bit of a hodge-podge of different "mag-stim" techniques. It really needs an expert. Famous dog   (c) 09:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

SPLC

 * Sooner or later we are going to have to face the fact that the SPLC has changed from a reliable source to an unreliable source. Wikipedia really doesn't have a good way to deal with that situation, especially when the source that has become unreliable supports the political POV of some editors who then defend it by pointing to old evidence that it once was reliable.


 * The SPLC calls groups that hold certain far-right positions (gays should not be allowed to be married, for example), "hate groups" but does not label groups that hold certain far-left positions (death penalty for denying climate change, for example) "hate groups". By an amazing coincidence, most of the SPLC's donors are on the left.


 * For one rather glaring example, see this report from the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:


 * Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on the Daily Stormer website, claiming that this "book club" met sometime in September 2016 at a unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post the SPLC listed the Iowa town a "refuge of "hate" and listed them as as the home of the Daily Stormer neo-Nazi group.


 * Later, facing a storm of criticism, the SPLC changed the Daily Stormer’s designation to "statewide."


 * One small problem: The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed. And the SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year, ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only reluctantly posting a "correction" that still insists that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level, and only posting the "correction" after there was a huge public backlash. Needless to say, there is zero evidence for the "statewide" claim either.


 * David Rettig, executive director of the Amana Colonies and Visitors Bureau, says that he attempted to reach out to the SPLC as soon as he learned about the map, but nobody from the civil rights organization would return his message. "It was a shock to us when we found out," he said. "We’ve checked around with the sheriff (Rob Rotter) and he indicated to me there is absolutely no hate group operating in the Amana Colonies, and he checked with his superiors in Des Moines and there are no reports … we’ve seen nothing of this, visitors or residents." Rotter backed up Rettig’s remarks" "There is no such neo-Nazi group in Iowa County." and that the SPLC was "irresponsible at best. I would hope that the SPLC is a more responsible organization than this example of their professionalism exhibits." The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong. Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, they changed the claim that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And yet the SPLC still refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll".


 * When you make a claim without a shred of evidence other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for over a year without providing a shred of evidence, you no longer have reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.


 * If you want another example, consider the case of Maajid Nawaz. The Southern Poverty Law Center has accused Nawaz of being an "anti-Muslim extremist", a label vigorously disputed by Nawaz and multiple reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you still going on about the SPLC? Reminds me of an edit I just made over at JimboTalk Look up what a "concern troll" is (urban dictionary can probably help you). &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup. I am still going on about the SPLC. The evidence is clear. BTW, I am very strongly apolitical. I don't support any party or any candidate, on the basis that I believe that politicians have an ability to decieve us that far exceeds our ability to detect deception. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern%20troll Just like you I also don't support any party or any candidate; but I don't fool myself into thinking that makes me neutral in any way shape or form. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a secondary issue here... Should we consider anything aired on the History Channel reluable? Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They haven't made everything they aired right (I don't own a TV)? So some content may (in theory) be reliable as a source in some circumstances, and other stuff is aliens. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Guy, you have tread this ground before. The part you keep passing over without comment is the part where the SPLC reversed the decisions you disagreed with. That's actually exactly what an RS should do. Also, in an age where right wing extremism is a clear and present threat, while left-wing extremism is confined almost entirely to angry rants posted on the internet from dorm rooms of liberal universities, I don't find it the least bit surprising or troubling that a group that monitors hatred would have their focus more on the political right than the left. Can you name a climate change denier that has been murdered over their beliefs? Because I can name quite a few abortion providers who've been murdered. Can you name a neo-nazi who's been murdered at a political rally? Because I can name an anti-neo-nazi protester who has been. I'm sorry, but your complaints about the SPLC just aren't based in an unbiased examination of the issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds a bit like the step in the middle of this SVG file. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some actual statistics: [ https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-deaths-ideology-charlottesville-anomaly ]. Of course the SPLC doesn't just label groups that commit murders as "hate groups"; those who oppose legalizing gay marriage aren't going around murdering gays, yet the SPLC labels them as hate groups. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, cato.org, the most reliable nonbiased source ever. lol. "The SPLC lists organizations such as the Family Research Council as anti-LGBT hate groups because they use dehumanizing language and pseudoscientific falsehoods to portray LGBT people as, for example, sick, evil, perverted, and a danger to children and society – or to suggest that LGBT people are more likely to be pedophiles and sexual predators. Some anti-LGBT hate groups support the criminalization of homosexuality in the United States and abroad, often marshaling the same debunked myths and demonizing claims in their efforts." &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said that the SPLC was wrong about labeling organizations such as the Family Research Council as anti-LGBT hate groups. I was disputing the claim that certain liberal groups are not hate groups because they don't murder people. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Read Violence against LGBT people. Then go to the contact page of the SPLC website and send them a list of hate groups (preferably with some evidence so they can check). &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear to be contradiction yourself. yes, violence against LGBT people exists. But not by the Family Research Council. You previously said (and I agreed with you) that they are an anti-LGBT hate group because they use dehumanizing language and pseudoscientific falsehoods to portray LGBT people as sick, evil, perverted, and a danger to children and society, and more likely to be pedophiles and sexual predators (they aren't, BTW). Are you now implying that they are an anti-LGBT hate group because they commit violent acts? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See strawman argument. All people I disagree with appear to be contradicting themselves. Maybe its me. I didn't say that. I posted a quote from splcenter.org. I've added italics and quotation marks to make it more clear to you that the linked text came from the page it is linked to. You didn't agree with me, you agreed with the SPLC. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? Where did the SPLC admit that the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed (or provide evidence that it does exist)? Where did they retract labeling Maajid Nawaz an "anti-Muslim extremist"? BTW Left-wing terrorism also exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:WHAAOE, see Whataboutism. The SPLC tracks many different kinds of hate groups, for example https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/nation-islam &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pants made a claim: "The part you keep passing over without comment is the part where the SPLC reversed the decisions you disagreed with." I responded by asking for evidence that they actually did reverse those decisions. (Hint: they didn't.) What's wrong with asking for evidence to support a dubious claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whats wrong with beating a dead horse? The horse is dead, it doesn't feel anything. I'd argue the horse doesn't mind. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not a big fan of "I looked at your evidence and my response is STFU". I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor am I. See WP:DEADHORSE. In an ideal world that page wouldn't exist. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Guy, you already provided the evidence that they reversed their decision. First they said something dumb, then they took it back. That's a reversal.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So, what if the SPLC is simply an organization that tracks right-wing hate groups? What if they're completely uninterested in left-wing hate groups? Does that necessarily make them unreliable when if comes to right-wing hate groups? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, an overtly partisan stance like that would undermine their reliability. Totally? No, but more than a little, because to any reasonable person, it strongly suggests that they're going to exaggerate hateful characteristics of right-wing groups. But the thing is, there's a definition of "hate group" that the SPLC uses, and most left-wing extremists don't fall into it. There are left-wing extremists out there, but just not very many, and they're not very dangerous. But the important thing as far as explaining the SPLC's focus is: left-wing extremists generally don't "...have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." There aren't many left-wing hate groups because that sort of identitarianism runs contrary to many principles of left-wing ideology. As for things like the Family Research Council; they're not terrorists, but they promotoe hatred of a class of people based on their immutable characteristics. If the SPLC didn't label them a hate group, they'd be unreliable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the SPLC is not properly identifying a fringe theory in the OP? I don't see it. Can we collapse the Guy-aside? jps (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The SPLC is not a reliable source. Post something sourced to infowars and I will gladly post a "guy-aside" with evidence that infowars is not a reliable source. Find a reliable source for the claim, please. (Please note that "where is the evidence that unrelaible source X is wrong" is not a valid reason for using the unreliable source. We don't have to debunk everything infowars postrs. The fact that infowars is an unreliable source is enough. Same with the SPLC.) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Why is the reliability of a non-fringe source being discussed here? I probably shouldn't have added Guy's name to the new section, but I was more than a bit annoyed that a thread I'd started on a fringe subject had been turned into something off-topic for this noticeboard. Doug Weller  talk 09:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This should probably be moved to WP:RSN Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the following 2 comments from the section above to this section. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The SPLC is not a reliable source. I am sorry that you think that discussing the unreliability of the SPLC is "hijacking other people's threads for a separate discussion". Post something sourced to infowars and I will gladly "hijack" that thread as well with evidence that infowars is not a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to delete anyone's comments (except in extreme cases), but I have moved these 2 comments to this section. The section above is about a different topic. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Please move my comments back so that they are directly under the comment I responded to. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How would annoying Doug Weller improve the encyclopedia? Equine reincarnation is rare (or so I've been told). &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have gotten along with you quite well in the past, but this time I am pondering whether to make an issue about you moving my comments or to let this one slide. I am asking you nicely, please read WP:TPOC and reconsider your actions. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We may not always agree on everything, but I enjoy talking to you. Of course there are loads of topics we haven't discussed that we agree on, and the stuff we disagree on is a tiny minority. I would (obviously) prefer it if you would let this one slide, but having a good relationship is more important to me than the location of those 2 comments. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems a simple courtesy to let me have a thread devoted to the topic I started. Otherwise I guess I could change the section heading of the topic I started and start a new topic under my desired section heading, but that seems a needless exercise. Doug Weller  talk 11:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are compromises possible. I'm probably fine with all scenarios. No one can claim that potatoes give a fuck. If you ask me again I will move your comment back, or we can find a compromise, or we can just let this one slide. My intention was to reduce drama (not specifically for one person but in general); I probably failed so I apologize for that. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

SPLC is an RS, they are widely regarded as such by other RS. At least 2 users here need to calm down or take it to ANI, and maybe admin need to look at then and their expressed attitudes toward cooperative editing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories of alt-med articles

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

Recently, there was a short discussion at 's talk page, following their removal of the more general categories Category:Alternative medicine and Category:Pseudoscience from pages like Vaginal steaming and Acupuncture. The pages are still included in categories that are subcategories of those. The notion of getting some input from those who watch this page was brought up, and I think it's a good one.

Personally, I think having those broader cats in place, because one has to check what categories a child cat page is in to see if it's a child cat. That's an intuitive system of nesting categories (and I'm not arguing against that system), but it makes it harder for inexperienced editors and casual readers to use the category system.

Consider a hypothetical. There's a reader who wants to learn about Psychic surgery, but can't recall what it's called. But they know it's alt-med, so they go to another alt-med article like Vaginal steaming to see if there's some link. First, the reader needs to know (or discover) that scrolling to the very bottom of the article will show the categories. But of course, there's no alt-med cat there. So the reader then clicks on Category:Asian traditional medicine. Once there, the reader needs to make the unintuitive leap that categories themselves can be categorized, and then scroll down to the bottom of that page. Of course, they then find they have to click through Category:Traditional medicine by location and Category:Traditional medicine before they can finally find a link to Category:Alternative medicine, and finally begin their search for our article on psychic surgery. Pinging who was also involved. And yes, I'm aware that this could be a much more generalized discussion, but at the moment I'm only concerned with its applicability to fringe topics, because one of the effects of this sort of (perfectly understandable) category sorting is to obscure the fact that we classify many of these pages as pseudoscience or alt-medicine. Even to my jaded old eyes, Category:Asian traditional medicine looks a lot more respectable than Category:Alternative medicine, because some traditional medicines have made it into mainstream medicine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  19:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the reader needs to make the unintuitive leap that categories themselves can be categorized — The first thing on (after the title and excluding meta-text) is "Subcategories", so it's probably not that hard to make the "leap". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Go back and re-read what I wrote. I was talking about finding parent categories, not child categories. I said it in like three different ways, I can't imagine how you missed that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The reader who "needs to make the unintuitive leap" has - according to what you wrote - already found the category of an article by scrolling to the very bottom of the article and then clicks on Category:Asian traditional medicine. It's not that much of a leap to scroll to the bottom again to find the parent categories. I'm not saying that working through the categories is necessarily easy or efficient, just that having found the category in the first place, finding the parent category is not an unintuitive leap. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, please go back and read what I wrote. What is obvious to an experienced editor of Wikipedia is not always obvious to the average reader. The fact that category pages can, themselves be placed into categories is something that I have personally explained to the surprise of a number of people in real life, and here on-wiki. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I regret to say that the final point above seems to me irrelevant, as I'm not at all sure that we should be overly concerned that a reader know whether we classify something as alt med or not. I think maybe a more direct and easily useful alternative might be to create the currently missing Outline of alternative medicine. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems relevant to me. As an encyclopedia, we're bound to encounter lots of ignorant know-it-alls complaining about our bias or POV; I'd rather we trim down the avenues for complaints by removing one aspect that looks like an error, but isn't really; and making sure our categorization system is transparent has further benefits, as I outlined above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and we already have Alternative medicine which is a pretty good outline of alternative medicine. Remember, we're an encyclopedia, not a college. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An article form of outline like those developed by WikiProject Outlines was more along the lines I was thinking. Such pages which have concentrated lists of relevant articles would probably be useful for paranormal, occult, and other topics as well. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The category system is heirarchical. It has to be. The question is what is the most useful way of arranging these categories.  Overlarge categories dont help people find things they are looking for.  So, for example, it isn't very helpful to put all articles which could properly be called pseudoscience  into that as a category if they can be put in categories which can themselves be categorised as pseudoscience.Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the categories:Alternative medicine, Alternative medical treatments‎ and Alternative medical systems overlap in a confusing way. I find it hard to see what the difference between them is. What do people think about merging Alternative medical treatments‎ and Alternative medical systems into Category:Alternative medicine? Rathfelder (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that proposal might be controversial to someone so WP:CFD would probably be the way to go, but I could live with it. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support the merge. I agree that this should be done through a more specific discussion.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: The category merges are now under discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 28. — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually there are numerous examples where categories are cyclical (category A is a subcat of B, which is a subcat of C, which is a subcat of A). Its an old old trick to categorize something with a lesser-known subcat and remove the well-known top-level cat. I am not saying that has happened here, but subcategories are meant to aid navigation, and not having pseudoscience or alternative medicine on clear pseudo/altmed articles (and instead having a cat which is less clear as to its origin in junk/non science and has a much narrower scope) is a disservice to the reader. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate the fiddling about that the CPOT do, and this effort ranks highly. I endorse comments from Mr. Pants and OID. I also note that inadequate edsums do not help the lack of transparancy that exists in the area of Cats. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could someone define CPOT please? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It refers to the type of editor who spends a great deal of time fiddling about with Categories, rather than improving the encyclopeadia. In case you were wondering, yes, fiddling is a euphemism. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 06:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also perceive a problem. While hierarchical categories are unavoidable, when items are moved, the full tree is not immediately visible to patrollers (a technical limitation).  When items are moved to overly specialized categories, the main scope or purpose of categories may be lost.  When two many items are in large main categories, I find this less of a problem; some people may find those difficult to navigate.  A reasonable compromise would be to keep those articles in both specialized and more general categories (i.e. keeping the main pseudoscience one along with any more specific one like alternative medicine; keeping alternative medicine along with any category like alternative medicine in, or whatever)...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we would have to use CFD.

Another question. How alternative does a remedy need to be to qualify as alternative medicine? Looking at Category:Therapy quite a lot of the articles don't look like mainstream to me. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Non-mainstream' and 'alt-med' are not the same. 'Alternative medicine' is defined fairly rigidly by wikipedia, but just because something is non-mainstream does not make it alternative by that definition. Or a therapy may be valid scientifically for one use, but alternative for another. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you regard Daniel Amen as practising alternative medicine? Rathfelder (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Re Amen, yes. His use of SPECT for diagnosis and to guide treatment is not supported by evidence or the mainstream medical field.MrBill3 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am at this point almost finished with the combined list of Scimago journal rankings and similar listings from the 2017 Ulrich's. Purely coincidentally, alt med is the first alphabetical grouping that deals with fringe or belief systems. Scimago includes in it's alt med journal listings includes at least one journal dealing with clinical hypnosis. That does seem to be included in our alt med WikiProject anyway but I'm not so sure it qualifies as pseudoscience. Maybe hold off for a few days till I finish the listing? John Carter (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Informal RfC; Should we re-add general "Alt-med" and "pseudoscience" cats back to alt-med and pseudoscience articles?

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

I'm not 100% sure either way on this, so I want to see what the community here thinks. For now, it seems like a good stop-gap, but a change to the cat system (even something as simple as listing parent cats back to the top level prominently on cat pages) could render it meaningless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  16:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That appears to be subverting the fundamental principle of the categorisation system, which is that it is heirarchical. If you want to point out that something is pseudoscience that needs to be in the body of the article. The categorisation system is not the same as a labelling system.Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This would strike me as qualifying as overcategorization. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No the categorization system is intended to be an aid to navigation. Removing obvious categories in favour of more obfuscating ones does not aid a reader to navigate to other pseudoscience articles easily and is more about labeling and pigeonholing than the actual intent of what a category is for. Pseudoscience is not being used to label, it is being used to help the reader look at other broader pseudoscience articles. There is no real reason it should not be in both - as both serve to direct the reader to different groups of articles. The 'overcategorization' argument would be valid if you were adding 10 different pseudoscience cats, not two. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Both should be clearly stated in the articles and then included in the categories. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Per my comments above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - My explanation above. — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Both should be clearly stated and categorized as such. Agree with PaleoNeonate's & Roxy's reasoning above. Jim1138 (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Categories are heirarchical. WP:SUBCAT - the policy is that "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it".Rathfelder (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Its a guideline rather than a policy. Which means it can be safely ignored if editors believe it is not appropriate in some situations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No - WP:SUBCAT is quite clear (with my emphasis added here): an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". In this particular case, both and  explicitly (and correctly, IMO) include diffuse, which says "It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." Mitch Ames (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes - It is part of Wikipedia's educational mission to categorize unambiguously. If readers may not be aware that a certain category is a subcategory of another, as in this case, then we do them a disservice by using only the subcat. Additionally, this would set a precedent opening us to thinly-veiled excuses to remove the Pseudoscience cat (I've seen similar cases over the past couple of years that fall under GAMING).
 * SUBCAT is designed for cases where including both categories would be entirely redundant - it directs us not to place "Paris, France" in both "Cities of France" and "Population centers of France", which is not an analogous situation as no relevant information is omitted by removing one of them. For the record, from WP:CAT one could argue that the "logical requirement" criterion for applying SUBCAT is not met, or that it should be considered a non-diffusing subcat and therefore exempt; but in my opinion that would really be missing the point, as citing SUBCAT at all would seem to me an attempt to apply policy for the sake of policy.
 * (It should also be noted that despite the wording of the section title, a no consensus result here should restore the categorization, since that was the original status quo.) Sunrise (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SUBCAT is designed for cases where including both categories would be entirely redundant — SUBCAT seems to be quite clear in its statements that "Apart from certain [well-defined] exceptions ... an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories ... a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category ...". If you think those sentences in SUBCAT are wrong or ambiguous, please propose a change to the guideline. If we think one of the well-defined exceptions applies, then we should use the appropriate template to say so.
 * one could argue that the "logical requirement" criterion for applying SUBCAT is not met — If you're referring to "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second ... then the first category should be made a subcategory ... of the second.", which subcategory do think should not be in which parent category?
 * ... citing SUBCAT at all would seem to me an attempt to apply policy for the sake of policy — It's a guideline (which I know carries less weight) not a policy, but either way isn't the point of a guideline that we should generally follow it? That's why we have them, to give some consistency. I know this not an official RfC, but WP:RFC explicitly says "If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies or style page." (Again, if you think the guideline is wrong, please propose a change to it at WT:CAT.) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to have entirely missed my point in several ways. :-) That said, my primary comments are about a) the intent of SUBCAT and b) benefit to the encyclopedia, in other words an IAR-related argument. I then added a couple of ways that one could argue based on policy anyways, as an aside. (By the way, I tend to use "policy" as in WP:POLICY since I think editors tend to make too much of the P/G distinction, but I see how that may have been confusing. Also, no need to educate me on basic points like why guidelines exist or how talk page discussions work...) Sunrise (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No I don't think it is a useful navigation tool. It's more name 'em and shame 'em.  It is unlikely that a reader will want a category that takes them to hoemopathy, intelligent design and astrology.  TFD (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes The above !vote convinced me that it is worth having this since a category that takes a reader to various undiscovered topics such as homeopathy, intelligent design, and astrology has been said by my students to be of use when they research pseudoscience and anti-science. jps (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, the same could be said about topical outline pages, which the fringe areas as a group seem to be lacking. Such outline articles could also go a bit further in indicating specifically why something is fringe or alternative or whatever. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes per BullRangifer and others. The removal of the main category looks a lot like an attempt to obscure. Also useful as a navigational aid to find related topics more broadly, the subcats are not adequately clear/intuitive and the navigation to parent cats is not particularly transparent. Categorization that lacks ambiguity and is clear to a novice reader should take priority over a system developed in an attempt to manage categories across a broad spectrum of subjects. MrBill3 (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It should be immediately clear what tree this fruit is growing on. The precise main branch, side branch, and twig is of less importance. That information is for aficionados, not general readers. Aficionados love to dig, but general readers shouldn't have to acquire the special knowledge about Wikipedia needed for such sleuthing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Of course an alternative would be to make all the bottom-level subcats of pseudoscience and alt-med non-diffusing-subcats and this all goes away... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think Non-diffusing subcategory is appropriate here, but if the consensus is that both parent and child categories should appear on the articles, then Non-diffusing subcategory should be used to unambiguously declare that intent. Obviously in this case diffuse would need to be removed from the parent cats. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it may be the appropriate step to provide clarity and stay consistent with categorization across the encyclopedia. I support making the bottom level subcats non-diffusing. MrBill3 (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


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


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

Aditya Dahal
Anyone bored and cares to swing a hatchet? Child prodigy, predictions, conspiracy allegations - "this place has got everything"  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Aditya Dahal nominated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it time to create a WP:PRODIGY guideline? jps (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I can't think of what such a guideline would say, other than: "Don't" in big red letters. Any legit prodigy would actually pass GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh. GNG? I think we've deleted prodigies in spite of GNG insistences. Take Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination) for example. The guideline should say something about what constitutes a credible source for a prodigy. Given the flash-in-the-pan-itude of a lot of these instances we have seen, it would be good to have something to refer to that would steer our editors away from digging up the inevitable puff pieces that can be no basis for writing a WP:BLP. jps (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need a prodigy guideline. It's taking too much effort to have to swat these down. Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I may take a crack at writing a proposal this weekend. If anyone is interested, here is as good as any a place to express it. I'll be sure to ping all those who are in this conversation. jps (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination) and the prior 3 may be useful. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Another recent case would be Articles for deletion/Max Loughan. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry jps, didn't notice you had already linked Jacob Barnett. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

SPLC on fringe TV shows, eg on the History Channel
"The modern far right is crisscrossed with pseudo-scientific research into lost Aryan super-civilizations, biblical giants, ancient astronauts and the occasional inter-dimensional alien." Doug Weller  talk 19:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm splitting Guy's thread off, please don't hijack other people's threads for a separate discussion. Doug Weller  talk 08:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know I've been saying for a long time that those shows aren't RSes for any claims except the views of their talking heads. Even then, I would be skeptical of any guests whose interviews seem edited. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't remember details but I know that some mainstream guests have complained. Doug Weller  talk 13:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds quite familiar to me, as well. I don't know where any editors who weren't brand-spanking new have ever tried to use those shows as a source, though I have seen it a few times. It usually gets quickly and quietly reverted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The bigger problem we have is with the pages about the programs themselves. For example, if you read through Ghosthunters, you wouldn't necessarily know how implausible the premise of the show was in spite it being called a "documentary" television show. (This is just a random example; I'm too busy to document them all in entirety.) jps (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Documentary films and television series are in part used to advocate the views held by their creators and contributors. It is not than unusual that these views are questionable or based on suspect sources. Treat them as "non-fiction" books: How do they compare to the sourced material? Dimadick (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)