Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained.
  • Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
  • To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.
Sections older than 20 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

  • If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead.
  • Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact.
  • Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:


Article alerts


Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion


Timothy Good[edit]

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

Newly created bio of UFO conspiracy theorist. Only content so far is a bibliography and a supposed top secret military document from 1948 that Good apparently hypes as proof of a conspiracy. Worth reviewing and watchlisting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I marked it for deletion, he seems to have no notability - Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
* Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Good_(2nd_nomination)
Reliably-sourced coverage does exist, but the issues raised by WP:FRINGEBLP definitely apply here. The sources all treat the individual with a WP:SENSATIONAL angle (Example: [1]), so there may not be enough serious, in-depth coverage with which to write an objective biography. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
This particular article looks like a press release (and ending with an ad for a new book)... —PaleoNeonate – 12:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Yet the BBC source with the “Alien Bases Revealed” headline is being held up as authoritative. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we may have stumbled upon a new group of UFO-credulous active here at Wikipedia. This may get sticky. jps (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think well meaning inclusionists will realize the problem when Good’s bio starts getting filled up with his actual views - which are frankly bonkers - and for which there is no published analysis or critique from any RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Will they? I am seeing people who look like they are very sympathetic to the idea that the new flurry of interest is somehow indicative of a "mainstreaming" of alien-contact mythology. jps (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Even if true, this isn't the hill you want to die on. The reasons why the sources fail WP:FRINGEBLP have been made abundantly clear at the AfD. Bludgeoning individual editors isn't going to change their minds. As mentioned, once the bio gets full of Good's wacky ideas, a {{Fringe_theories}} template will undoubtedly become a permanent feature of the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I am not sure I'm comfortable with a solution where Wikipedia allows BLPs to be permatagged. I understand the concern about fighting for naught, but I am more concerned that the relatively poor quality of our UFO content (compared to, say, creationism) is misleading people into thinking there is a there there. On my long list of things to do is to fix the main article. Perhaps I should get back to that. jps (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Could use some help in getting this article to a reasonable place. jps (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree. See the Talk page. It’s a start. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Carolina Bays Section of Antonio Zamora article[edit]

The Carolina Bays section of the article about Antonio Zamora needs to be revised as it presents his interpretations, which are considered fringe by many Quaternary geologists, "...without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." I would also argue that it lacks neutrality as it presents his interpretations as if they were accepted by mainstream scientists. Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Just looking at this and it seems to already have been cleaned up by Doug. It would probably be possible to keep a mention but the section was definitely undue... —PaleoNeonate – 07:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Or... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Zamora. jps (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

no chance to edit[edit]

".without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." Unfortunately the section was deleted before I had a chance to address your concern. Mr Zamora's paper on the Carolina Bays was published in a peer reviewed journal. As far as I am aware all of the existing theories do not fully explain the creation of the Carolina Bays. Mr Zamoras paper offered an alternative and plausible explanation, although I believe certainly not watertight. He is a serious engineer and scientist and when I started the article I was not aware of his work on the Carolina Bays, I only knew of his pioneering work on automatic spelling correction and chemical abstracts. Ray3055 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References?[edit]

"are considered fringe by many Quaternary geologists". I am willing add back in the section on his theory and to specifically mention any papers that call his paper 'fringe', I am only aware of one blog that mentioned a problem with the theory, but certainly it did not use the word fringe, and is itself hardly a reliable reference for Wikipedia. Ray3055 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

So far, Zamora’s ideas have been mainly embraced by fringe catastrophists since it was published in 2017. An example of the acceptance of Zamora’s ideas by fringe catatsrophists is Michael Jaye in his book, The Worldwide Flood: Uncovering and Correcting the Most Profound Error in the History of Science. Also, Graham Hancock in Chapter 27 of his latest book, America Before argues for Zamora's hypothesis. There is a corresponding lack of equivalent discussion and support in mainstream publications, which together speaks volumes about Zamora’s credibility.
In addition, peer review can be quite falliable. For example there the peer-reviewd paper, which also cites Zamora:
Jaye, M., 2019. The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 19(1).
PDF of paper
Volume 19 - Issue 1
Paper available: The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary
Being accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not provide special dispensation to fringe nature of Jaye ideas.
Also, there is:
Cholleti, E.R., Vaddadi, K. and Yadav, A.H.K., 2017. Puratana Aakasha-Yantrika Nirmana Sadhanavasthu (Ancient Aero-mechanical manufacturing materials) Materials Today: Proceedings, 4(8), pp.7704-7713.
It was published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2017. Only in 2019 was it retracted because of its fringe nature. Peer-review is neither infallible nor always prevents bad science from being published as discussed in:
Wright, V.P., 2019. Memes, False News, and the Death of Empiricism. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 89(4), pp.310-311.
At the least, Zamora's hypothesis needs a credible, published, third party review of its significance to be mentioned as the lack of formal discussion just might mean that nobody, except fringe researchers, regard his paper serious or significant enough to discuss. A lot of bad science is simply ignored. Paul H. (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
He's been unable to get his books published and has published them himself, either through "Zamora Consulting" or http://www.scientificpsychic.com/ - the first few lines of his website are:
Scientific Psychic® is an educational web site dedicated to the exploration of the human mind with the objective of encouraging critical thinking, a healthy life style and improved communication skills.
Psychic Chat
Online Psychic Chat with Free Psychic Readings, Horoscopes, Tarot readings, and other interesting Paranormal Topics like ghosts and spirits.
Try a Personal Psychic Reading with a live psychic!
palm reading
Palm Reading, Extrasensory Perception (ESP) Tests and the Scientific Psychic Workbook will let you explore aspects of your subjective perceptions and understand the scientific method.
A section about the Solar System covers the timeline of the Earth, the evolution of the atmosphere, meteorite impacts, an analysis of the Carolina Bays, lunar craters and maria, and a geology ::glossary. This section also includes topics about human evolution, dinosaur classification and the tree of life.
Younger Dryas Ejecta Curtain
This video examines the geological traces left on a variety of terrains by the secondary impacts of ice boulders ejected by an extraterrestrial impact on the Laurentide Ice Sheet.
Here's an example from last month where fringe got past peer review.[2] Doug Weller talk 16:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I could use an esoteric manicure...[3]PaleoNeonate – 16:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

State atheism[edit]

Thread has long since run its course and is not proving productive. Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
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.

This has been raised over at WT:WikiProject Skepticism#State atheism and I'm cross-posting here. From a quick look it seems as if this article takes the approach of listing "atheist" states and then having laundry lists of Bad Things which have happened, possibly promulgating a fallacious line which is problematic from multiple of the WP:PAGs. Views? Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

From a brief look it does seem to be skewed that way BUT to use Mexico as an example, all of that material is in scope as its a result of the policy of state-mandated secularity. So in short, dont know. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Imagine we would rewrite State religion in that way... --mfb (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
If the article's title-topic is not mentioned in the sources cited in either, both are problematic, because if it's not the source designating "X event" as "State X", the article is (tacitly by including the event under the "State X" designation-title). Wikipedia is not a WP:SYNTH WP:ESSAY.TP   08:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the use of this board if no-one answers/examines the issue posted... and how long is it before threads with no replies are archived? TP   08:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
For me, there's definitely an issue here. If I had the time as a first step I'd slash and burn removing content sourced to sources which did not directly & explicitly support a discussion of "state atheism", to satisfy WP:V better. But I don't have the time. It's not like it's actively harmful - just one to add mentally to the list of shit Wikipedia articles, probably. Alexbrn (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not only about time, it's about bother, because the carefully-concocted WP:SYNTH article is 'protected' by its creators (and their acolytes)... which is why I've limited my participation to the talk page, as the past has demonstrated that any changes will be reverted almost immediately (by magically-appearing 'reinforcements')... and a look through the article history will show that a few there don't play by the rules (anon 'voting' to 'enforce' reverts, waylay changes, etc.), and an often WP:GAMEd wikipedia seems to be quite toothless in dealing with this. But yes, there are many 'by a select demographic' (against, 'better than' another) articles on Wikipedia, and it's not just limited to religion (city, country articles, for example).
But as far as this article is concerned, it would be wise to remove claims that are not supported by sources (not mentioning 'state atheism' or at least a derivative of the same term-topic-designation), as that is demonstrably pure WP:SYNTH. Cheers. TP   10:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
And yes, it is a rather low-level, low-traffic article, although it does come up top in Google results in a search for 'state atheism'... but only people who already subscribe to that 'interpretation' of history would ever use that as a search term, so I guess the damage it does is minimal. But what the 'only on wikipedia' (and WP:FRINGE-esque websites) aspects of that article does to Wikipedia's reputation, I don't know. TP   11:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

TheProemnader, I don't get how you keep on trying to WP:FORUMSHOP with such extreme desperation when you yourself already made an RFC which brought forth numerous and diverse editors - issues were addressed by now and most did not agree with you [4], you have had multiple discussions on the talk page itself which included more numerous and diverse editors - most did not agree with you, you also made an attempt to complain in a WP NoOriginalResearch Noticeboard which brought in even more numerous and diverse editors - no one agreed with you there either [5]. Now you seek even more from another noticeboard too? Clearly a lot of editors have disagreed with your paranoia and conspiracy theory mentality in all of this for a few years now too.

It gets worse when we find that you are very hypocritical in that you support completely unsourced articles like Atheist Atrocities fallacy which clearly was WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:ESSAY and has no mainstream or academic references from any reliable sources. Lets not forget that that article was plagiarized from a cheap blog as I already demonstrated. I cannot believe that you are not complaining about that article!!!

For an article that you say that is low volume and low impact you have certainly put up an obsessive (Herculean) effort of incorrect assertions and heavily biased opinions when they have all been addressed by numerous editors all of which were willing to listen to you. There clearly is no conspiracy here at all. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There was a different context however, a very new article not ready for main space usually deserves to be moved tp Draft space, where it's not search-engine indexed, may expire and get deleted if unsuccessfully submitted. The article would very likely have been deleted otherwise. —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed about that. The point was to look at the comments of ThePromenader in deletion discussion in how he did not raise any issues on that article like he does constantly on about the State Atheism article. I mean look at how many violations of wikipedia Policy the "Atheist Atrocities fallacy" article had at the time of review for deletion [6] and yet not much of a peep of WP:SYN, WP:OR, or WP:ESSAY from ThePromenader on that article. He even says "the phenomenon it describes is very real, as demonstrated by the well-sourced and well-cited article itself" and links the pseudo-conspiracy blog (which he has used numerous times as an argument against State Atheism). It shows his heavy bias on the matter. Preserve one and not the other at any cost. I at least was willing to preserve the dumb atrocities page if reliable sources were provided. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

First off, I opened none of the inquiries into the article this time around (and my RfC request dates from... a year ago?), so the 'forum shopping' accusation is... misplaced, even more so than it was the first time around. And why the ad hominem instead of addressing the points raised? Lastly, and this is the second time I tell you this, I did not vote to 'keep' that unrelated article as it was, and voiced clearly my reservations with it. In all, this seems a desperate attempt to attract attention to anywhere but the article in question. TP   00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
PS: This inquiry, and the initial post on the Wikiproject Skepticism board that probably led to it, demonstrates that the resevations with this article are far from just my own. Cheers. TP   01:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You are the most interested editor in this article and you keep on stating the same nonsense that has already been addressed multiple times in different RFCs, noticeboards, and talk pages with many different editors. And your attempt today to expedite some consensus in your favor show that you are still doing the same thing - seeking allies instead of editorial opinions which you already got many times before in the RFC, noticeboards, and talk page. Your points have been extensively addressed per the links above. And yet you still persist in WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Actually the Wikiproject Skepticism board discussion was pretty much dead and not much was said and you attempted to revive it with the same arguments almost a month later on the Wikiproject Skepticism board. You did the same thing on this noticeboard. You did not have much of a reservation on the "atrocities" article since you did not condemn that article like you constantly do the State Atheism in the RFC, noticeboards, and talk pages. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, It was not I who opened the discussion on the on the Wikiproject Skepticism board, and the 'seeking allies' accusation is completely unfounded, so I don't see what continually attempting to make this about me has anything to do with the problems of the article itself. Again, the Wikiproject Skepticism board thread and this inquiry deomstrates that the concern is far from mine alone. TP   01:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
With you saying stuff like "I'm not sure of the use of this board if no-one answers/examines the issue posted... and how long is it before threads with no replies are archived?" above, it shows that you have more interest than normal because no one is apparently replying or doing much in your favor. Most editors make their points and let others make their points if they care. You are trying hard to get even more attention when you have already received it in the RFC, the noticeboard, and the talk pages of the article. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is getting off-topic for this noticeboard. Please keep discussion focused on content. Discussion of editor behaviour belongs at user Talk pages or WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
To get back on-topic, what would you suggest as a move forward? Reams of talk-page efforts to get an at least acknowledgement that very few of the article sources mention the article topic, or anything near it, were fruitless (answers were but circular distractions from that point), so I suggested a complete, perhaps section-by-section, claim-source review, much like the one ArtifexMayhem did over a year ago. I've already done a complete source-claim cleanup not so long ago, so that job should be much easier. Cheers. TP   09:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually numerous quotes have already been extensively extracted from sources already and recently as well. So it is clear that the sources certainly discuss the topic. It should be obvious that if no source mentions much relating to the topic that it should be amended or removed. On the other hand, if one holds to a conspiracy theory that the article is all SYN when the quotes clearly address the topic then there would be a problem. Also, all of this was very recently discussed in the article's talk page with the input of other editors. Ignoring the consensuses there is also a major issue of some editors like ThePromenader - who has a history of not listening to others in those discussions. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
So since you affirm that the sources do mention the article-topic-title, then you obviously would also agree to a claim-source examination - great! It won't affect the article in the least - only its conclusion will. Cheers. TP   13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course the sources mention the topic - that is why they are cited. Duh. I have been verifying it myself directly. Why would it still be standing after all the attention it has received in the past few years from the RFC, the talk pages, the NOR noticboard, and even this noticeboard? I have been verifying the sources myself and examining the claims along with the sources by looking for the quotes. I have been able to find substantial number of quotes from the sources directly very easily and have posted them on the article itself for anyone to see. This is transparency. This is superior to having an editor like you or me or ArtifexMayhem making claims about a source (which could be misinterpreted due to our personal biases). Quotes show the actual statements made by the source and they have checked out quite well. If there are any issues then we can adjust per the sources.
It is time for you to move on just like they told you at the WP:NOR noticeboard [7] over the exact same issue. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • So you do not want the article's sources to be verified. That and the persistant and misrepresentive 'look, keys!' ad hominems (in ignoring the concerns of other contributors, the very reason for this thread? - but as you were already told, take it to ANI) but underlines this, and that speaks pretty well for itself. TP   03:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The numerous quotes that I have been able to extract form the sources directly are pretty much extra verification since I actually looked many up myself and seemed like a good idea so that editors are not having to guess so much. It is not my word, it is the source's words for all to see for themselves. No need for you or anyone else to say what the the sources say. They speak for themselves. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
But here, that sort of claim is just asking us to take it at face value (and not verify). Thanks for the confirmation. TP   04:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
No it is not. It is not asking you to do anything. The sources can be looked up manually by yourself or anyone else. Just like the editors told you at the citing sources talk [8]. I always look up sources from Wikipedia manually so I don't see how it is an issue for anyone. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This very thread demonstrates that it is an issue for many more than myself... so, it's just a case of mass delusion, then.
A claim-source verification like the one ArtifexMayhem did over a year ago would not affect the article in the least, and if it turns out to be but a huge waste of time, so much the better! I can't see how there can be any rational objection to this, and the fact that there is one, again, speaks pretty well for itself. TP   04:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect. His analysis did not provide quotations - it was his commentary all the way. Should we take his word for it? It was a blind analysis + the section was badly written and no clear consensus was reached too. The quotes I extracted at least make the sources content visible to everyone, not invisible. Why would you try to hide what the sources actually say? That defeats the purpose of verifying what the sources actually say. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
So, more 'justtakemywordforit'-ism (that, here, speaks for itself)... but, as you said, people can verify for themselves. You're just poisoning the discussion at this point. TP   05:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • At present I am persuaded that a source-by-source examination is a way to go, and Alexbrn suggests more direct measures, but neither approach resolves the issues around the scope of the article: world history seen through an 'atheistic' lens is indeed a concept practically inexistent in historical consensus (thus absent from mainstream, reliable sources), but it does demonstrably exist in mostly-sectarian sources (as the article's few sources that actually use the term 'State atheism' already demonstrates): IMHO, this article's prime fault is its trying present this WP:FRINGE view as 'common knowlege' without any mention of the origins and authorship of the 'State atheism' term-topic-concept-designation; including this information would change the scope of the article to a more neutral, less WP:FRINGE one, and do a lot to repair the article's other issues as well. Cheers. TP   10:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That is why the sources and quotations are already available for all to see. No is opposing looking at the sources - many editors have already looked at them and no one has complained. The problem is that your approach does not result in your conclusions (I myself have looked at many sources and have extracted quotes and they check out). You already made the exact same arguments in the RFC [9], the talk page multiple times over, and even on the WP:NOR noticeboard [10] over the exact same issue with numerous editors looking over your claims and arguments. No one agrees with you. no point in you WP Please stop repeating yourself and let other editors contribute, if they even care.
On the other hand the you endorsements of clear cut WP:FRINGE articles like the unsourced, WP:OR, WP:SYN dumb article Atheist Atrocities fallacy show that you have a double standard. Why you never made an equal effort on complain about that article [11] shows your double standards.
The solution is already there. The numerous quotations already expose what the sources say and editors can see that there is clear discussion of the topic in them - which is why no else has complained. In particular the WP:NOR noticeboard [12] discussion emphasized that when you made the exact same points. Take their recommendation and move on. Your WP:FORUMSHOPPING is getting old. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's pretty evident at this point that Huitzilopochtli1990 (aka: Ramos1990) is intent on sabotaging any discussion about/examination of the article. TP   13:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
You have no right to try to censor anyone [13] and [14] and I think that others can see that you are trying to control the dialogue and ignoring what others have said. This is an open discussion, not a one sided one and the fact that you have already gone through and RFC, numerous talk page discussions, the WP:NOR noticboard over the exact same issue with the exact same arguments is relevant to the discussion. Plus I already addressed your concerns. There is no sabotaging when you keep on repeating your problem and I keep on summarizing the solutions that I an others have already addressed. Let others speak - people already know your position and mine. Step aside. If you stop repeating the problem, I will stop repeating the solutions already mentioned by me and other editors. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
You have already been told twice that your persistant ad hominems are off-topic here, and at this point they are beyond disruptive. TP   14:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I don't get what problem there actually is. There is a great deal of editing of late, and an even great deal of talk page Wall Of Text chatter which doesn't seem to have enough substance to turn off my TL;DR defenses. If there is anything that might be relevant to this noticeboard, it's the faint odor of denialism that surrounds the notion that the article shouldn't be talking about the repression, destruction, and slaughter the various communist governments did in the cause of state atheism. Other than that the whole thing comes across as a WP:OWNERSHIP battle. I don't see anything grossly wrong with the article, and for all the yammering nobody seems to be able to spell out succinctly or at least clearly what the problem is with the article. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The entire point of the off-topic 'yammering' was likely to make this thread tl;dr (thus dissuade attention and interest - a tactic that seems to 'work', otherwise...)
And yes, the article 'seems okay' at first glance, but that's exactly the problem: it doesn't stand to testing, as others have noted, here (namely, the contributor who opened this thread), and the author of the post that probably inspired that. An earlier claim-by-claim examination of a section of the article gives a pretty good idea of what's going on in much of the rest of it. Thanks. TP   16:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Mangoe you got it. Pretty much he is arguing that State Atheism is a conspiracy theory by religious apologists and denies that such a thing exists and that sources do not talk of such a thing - so it is all a conspiracy. I verified many sources in the article myself and extracted quotes for all to see and I came to a different conclusion. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is what I was answering before the above was changed:

The article has extensive quotes available for anyone to see now since I verified many of the sources myself in the article and I extracted them, unlike what ThePromenader mentioned (opinions but no quotes for others to verify). Quotes from sources always solve these kinds of issues since the sources speak for themselves. Transparency is important.

So, why the deluge of desperate disruptions? And all I've done thus far is to propose a verification of topic-claims to sources (as others have before (<---- and pssst, that's a reference to verified quotes and sources, not 'opinion')) ... which is exactly what the comment above asks for, right? So I don't really see what all the panic is about. Cheers. TP   21:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh by disruption you mean not agreeing with you? You keep on ignoring that I have verified many sources and extracted quotes myself there. The blind analysis you keep on mentioning had no quotes from any of the sources so how is that trustworthy of anything? It is an opinion. With quotes exposed in the article now, everyone can see what the sources say. Are you trying to hide what the sources say? Anyways, please continue with your conspiracy theory of how the whole article is a conspiracy theory by religious apologists - even though I do not see any of those in the article. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
And thanks for the additional misrepresentation: I do not deny that the 'State atheism' concept exists, I just point out that it can't be presented as 'common knowledge' as it is in the article. And if it were such common knowledge, the term would be present in mainstream, reliable sources - it isn't - as well as in the article sources themselves - it is, but barely, tailored and rarely - but, again, all this can be verified, right? Cheers again. TP   21:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
PS: Holey Moley, we're actually back on topic again. TP   21:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Cool so the article is not fringe. I will let others comment on your understanding of this. Clearly quotes from reliable sources such as academic books, journals, news sources, etc. are not enough for you. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Wherever did I say that? I don't know what more I can add, though, but to close with my proposition to verify the article's topic-claims to its sources. Normally there should be no rational reason to object to this (a verification would demonstrate that all this 'conspiracy' really is all 'bunk', right?), but obviously there is... so go figure, I guess. TP   21:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no objection to verifying sources. I was able to do it and so can you. You can look them up yourself like I did and it is why I have extracted quotes for all people to see and judge. They can look the sources up and expand the quotes if they like. That gives more transparency than your obscure weird no-quotes-from-the-sources opinion pieces by some random wiki editor you keep on suggesting. Why would you want to hide what the sources say? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no objection to verifying sources.

No objections, then. So we can proceed with a topic-claim-source verification. Great! TP   22:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There never was an objection to verify sources, but you cannot constantly claim denial of what the sources say or make your own interpretation of them. Quotes settle the matter, not Wikipedia editor opinions of a source. Any review by you would not really be reliable or useful because of your belief in the article being a big conspiracy theory. No one has also agreed with you on the RFC, the multiple talk page discussions, and the WP:NOR noticeboard because you have a questionable bias and are unable to be objective with the sources. So you are not really in a position to address such issues. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
But an inquiry would debunk said (inexistant) 'conspiracy theory' accusation.
So basically what you want is for people to just take your word for it, here, that 'all checks out' (and that the contributors who led to/opened this thread are just hallucinating), without any actual demonstrable, testable verification or inquiry.
I really, really rest my case. TP   23:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I have made an inquiry myself - all I did was look to see if the sources made the claim and found the corresponding quotes easily and posted them. My verification was public and open. The proof is in the quotes I was able to get from the page numbers and references that were already there before me. I was honest and transparent with everyone. No editor has ever objected to any of them so no issues have been encountered. I am clean on the matter. On the other hand, you have done damage to your reputation since you have had multiple objections and no consensus favoring you in the RFC you yourself made, multiple article talk page discussions, and the WP:NOR noticeboard you yourself made. Now it looks like there is disagreement with your denialism here too. So you have not proven to be an honest and good faith editor on this matter. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a faith-based initiative, so just 'declaring' things in its pages doesn't give them validity or make them true. And if all you stated about the article were true, you would be encouraging an inquiry, not trying to ad hominem distract from, tl;dr bloat, poison and disrupt one. TP   01:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, and before I comment further I'm (a) changing the topic name to something less prejudicial, and (b) getting rid of the collapse again since it obviously shouldn't be done by one of the parties in the dispute to effectively cut the other out of the discussion. Mangoe (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No matter the (non-)outcome of this thread, it seems necessary to conduct a claim-by-claim verfication to demonstrate that most of this article's sources do not label the events described as 'state atheism' (or any similar term - WP:SYNTH, WP:OR), and that no mainstream, reliable sources do either (WP:FRINGE). Mostly off-topic as it may be, the above 'discussion' serves as evidence that there are a few who obviously do not want this to happen, which makes it seem all the more necessary to conduct an inquiry. Cheers. TP   10:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing this. There's no real dispute that I can see about the official atheism of various communist governments, nor about the various acts they took against clerics, believers, and various structures. As far as I can tell you are trying to take an extremely tendentious approach in insisting that one is not a product of the other unless the source uses exactly the right words. This is a demand which is unreasonable and leans towards denialism, not only because of pettifogging over terminology, but because human intent is never so purely and tightly focused. Find me some decent sources that say these actions were not a product of a state antireligion policy, and then we can talk. As it is, it's you that come across as pressing a fringe position. Mangoe (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

you are trying to take an extremely tendentious approach in insisting that one is not a product of the other unless the source uses exactly the right words.

Not at all. As even you do and demonstrate in your 'atheism of communist governments' description, most all sources attribute the acts the article depicts to the despotic nature (communism, regime, etc.) of the suppressing power, not its 'atheism':
  • This bent on history is almost exclusive to a select demographic (unmentioned in the article, but demonstrated by the sources that do use a term similar to the article title).
  • In fact, in light of the above, the article title can arguably be seen as a thinly-veiled (not even) WP:ATTACK by one demographic against another.
  • Not only do most sources not contain a term anything like 'state atheism', many do not even contain the word 'atheism', and, again, attribute the acts described to their authors (communist/soviet ideology, etc.), not 'atheism'. This is not only WP:FRINGE, but textbook WP:SYNTH.
  • Labelling the pointing out of the above 'tendentious' does not make it so.

This is a demand which is unreasonable and leans towards denialism

Just calling it 'unreasonable' does not make it so, and nobody is denying that the acts described ever happened.

Find me some decent sources that say these actions were not a product of a state antireligion policy, and then we can talk.

A demand to prove a negative against a strawman: again, no-one is denying that these acts took place, but even the 'product of state antireligion policy' in your comment doesn't attribute them to 'atheism'. In fact, why not call the article "state antireligion policy"? TP   03:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
PS (1): the 'State atheism' anti-atheist/secularisation meme-accusation itself does merit an article of its own: it appears as early as 1871 as a complaint about the separation of church and state[15], soon after as a complaint agaisnt the secularisation of (British) education [16], and it became popular among evangelists especially after it was (re-)coined by fundamentalist leader Bell Riley[17] (and this trend may have led to the label's application to soviet communism). From the early 1980s, blaming the acts of history's worst despots on 'atheism' became an apologetic/evangelist trend one author calls 'the atheist atrocities fallacy'; the 'state atheism' accusation-label (and its Wikipedia article) is more than an echo of this. TP   04:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, none of the 3 old sources you mentioned in your last comment say that atheism is a cause for any atrocities, instead they all refer to secularization:
The 1871 document talks about Church and State philosophy - not atrocities, the British Education source talks about secularized education without God being referenced - not atrocities, and the Bell Reiley source talks evolution in and insisting on "no State atheism" as well as "no State religion." - not atrocities either.
On the other hand, the fringe historical-revisionist blog of Michael Sherlock is completely unreliable as it is self published (was the plagiarized main and only source of the rejected Wikipedia article which really was fringe Atheist Atrocities fallacy). Sherlock's blog does not say that religious people created the term "state atheism" either. Actually the source does not even mention the term "state atheism" at all! The argument you are trying to make looks quite forced even when using your "tendentious" criteria on the sources you just provided.
PS - I just noticed that you tried to censor me again for the third time in this discussion [18] and that another editor correctly reverted your attempt [19]. You cannot censor others who disagree with you in a noticeboard. I have never tried to censor you and you should never try to censor another editor like that. No other editor besides you attempted censorship (collapsing parts of the discussion) at all. In fact you tried to remove nearly all of my rebuttals to you and my source verification responses that I myself did - publicly and openly on the article itself [20]. This makes you look bad since you intentionally tried to hide the fact that I verified sources in the article directly with actual quotations and thereby challenging your claims that no one has verified the sources! Suppression attempts like this and manipulation of discussions are frowned upon. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Response to 'PS': Calling it 'censorship' does not make it so. You have intentionally bloated this thread beyond all readability with your misrepresentative, anything-but-the-topic, repetitive attempts to paint another contributor in a bad light, and that was the only thing that was collapsed per wikipedia policy.
In any case, the only thing you have contributed to this discussion thus far is claims that 'everything is okay!' (with an understated 'so please don't verify!'). If your claims are indeed true, than a claim-to-source verification would demonstrate it, wouldn't it? Yet you abviously do not want that to happen, and that speaks for itself. TP   03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
My 'PS' (1) has nothing to do with the comment above it (that can speak for itself), but it does serve to denote the origins and various uses of the term 'State atheism' over time (something the article does not do at all). Cheers. TP   07:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect. Even User:Mangoe noticed you were trying to censor my replies extensively - pretty much everything I had said (my verification of sources + the history of your claims and others responses to them (in various noticeboards, your RFC, and talk page discussions) - and stepped in. Also the wikipedia policy states clearly "these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." You and I were involved parties so neither one of us can censor each other. BTW, my proof of verification was in the quotes I was able to extract from the references. That is WP:Verification by definition "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." and that is what others have told you in the citing sources talk page when you asked recently too. Listen to other editors please. Step aside and I will do the same. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ignoring the misrepresentations (and disingenuous other): I will go ahead with the claim-verification then. Again, if your claims (and accusations) are true, I'll just be wasting my time, right? You'll know when it's done, cheers. TP   05:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Folks, this is a noticeboard. It is mainly for posting short notices in order to call the attention of fringe-savvy users to certain articles that need it. It is not for having more-than-a-week-long discussions about what to do about that article. (See earlier comment "get a room" above.) And it is definitely not for accusations. Could you please have the discussion about the article on the Talk page of the article - where it will be useful years from now, when people want to know what were the ideas behind the changes made these days - and take the bickering either to your user talk pages or to, I don't know, toilet walls? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I am pretty much done here. I only came in because ThePromenader started to continue his agenda here even though this was all already addressed in the article talk page very recently with a consensus there too, a few previous noticeboards, and a previous RFC. I apologize. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The disingenuousity of the this 'agreeing' is just... astounding. If anything, this thread will serve as ANI evidence (the proper place for behaviour complaints) when Huitzilopochtli1990 tries the same thing again. Cheers. TP   05:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking the same thing on you. I did not attempt what you did - try to censor another editor (you got reverted 3 times for it - makes you look bad) or WP:FORUMSHOP or ignoring the consensus from the multiple talk page discussions there, the RFC, or the WP:NOR noticeboard where all of this was discussed by you extensively with no consensus in your favor each time. None of this makes you look good, but agenda driven. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Because you doggedly ad-hominem off-topic poisoned every one, and the record shows it! Not next time. Cheers. TP   05:34, 13 June 2019 (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.

RfC: Comparing demonization of CO2 with "Jews under Hitler"[edit]

There is a RfC on the William Happer page about whether his remarks that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler" belongs in the lede.[21] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis[edit]

Here's a perennial topic, about which work is often postponed, but I would be grateful if more people could audit my changes at this article. Without it, my impression was that of undue fringe promotion. There's only one other person at the talk page (who contested my edit and may also have valid points). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: my particular edit and source did not stand, but there were obvious improvements, thanks to Alexbrn. —PaleoNeonate – 22:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
And Jim Moore got to do a short jig on her grave, anticipating the claim made ten years later and added for "balance" (because it is pseudoscience, and she was a pseudo-scientist, according to … erm, the Vulcan Science Council?). cygnis insignis 15:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
My source from Moore wasn't preserved. —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I said it was a "short jig" :-) Was it copied from the another article? cygnis insignis 18:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Fish Physiology[edit]

Hi all,

I'm pretty new so please excuse me if I do anything incorrectly! Two months ago I removed a reference to a study into the effects of atrazine in frogs, from the page on fish physiology. Shortly afterwards my edit was reverted, and a message left on my talk page advising that it shouldn't be removed because I hadn't provided evidence via citations. I can understand why it was reverted as the reason I gave was a bit ambiguous; I should have clearly explained that another reason for removal was that the study in question didn't involve fish or their physiology. I originally gave my reason for removal as relating to the poor quality of the study itself (controversy over the results and lack of data, lack of replication) and the fact that the findings aren't accepted in mainstream science (primarily as the researcher apparently won't release his data, protocols etc.).

The section in question was changed when my edit was reverted, and I'm happier with the new wording. But not completely happy - the new version really doesn't strike me as NPOV, plus it still uses the frog study as a citation (#28).

Could I please ask for some assistance on whether anything needs doing re. the "Effects of pollution" section of this article?

You can see the original comment left on my talk page if you'd like some background. Also, as explained on my talk page I have no COI, which the other editor seems to have concluded when first contacting me.

The truth is that I genuinely have no idea whether atrazine causes problems for any form of life, which ones are affected, how, why, dose/response, etc.

However, I don't think that weak studies that remain unaccepted by the scientific community in general should be used as evidence.

Plus frogs aren't fish.

For anyone who's interested, I've linked to an article on the study and scientist in question. You could possibly argue that this article isn't 100% NPOV (maybe the journalists don't like each other?), nevertheless there is a lot of interesting info and background provided here: [1]

Thanks in advance for any help you can give! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

References

I don't see plausible evidence that you would have a related conflict of interest, but also don't see anything that I could do (others here may know better). Wikipedia is not for environmental activism either but the section appears in due weight and the original citation did mention fish. There may be some synthesis issue with the current mention (but I can only access its abstract, the article with only two cross-references and about the wars, where I don't see mention of fish). —PaleoNeonate – 06:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

DNA teleportation[edit]

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

Looks like a pretty standard woo article; came across it after seeing it come up here. Look at the opening paragraph of the old revision for what was there for the past month. The reverted edit mentions an additional study which the article should probably mention, but I'm not sure how best to do that. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

DNA replicates in a pure water sample? Even if we ignore the other nonsense that stood in the article way too long: Do the cranks now claim the atoms that make up DNA are produced in the pure water sample? Via cold fusion, or what? --mfb (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
If I say his name, will he magically appear? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 05:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Spontaneous generationPaleoNeonate – 06:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Some have been improving it already, thanks for that, —PaleoNeonate – 06:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Woman in Black (supernatural)[edit]

Greetings, I see that overly-credulous articles on supernatural/fringe/paranormal phenomena are often flagged for maintenance here, so I wonder if people here can help with Woman in Black (supernatural). I just closed the AFD on it as "keep" but some keep arguments were concerned that the article is treating the topic in an unduly credulous/in-universe manner and I am thinking this forum might be the right place to ask for assistance with remedying the problem (or stating that it has been resolved). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events[edit]

There is disagreement on if this entry in relation to climate change should be included and if so, how to present it. Input is welcome here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ancient Astronauts[edit]

It has had its short description "Pseudo-scientific hypothesis that posits intelligent extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth" removed and a lot of tagging added. These are obviously good faith edits - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#WP:BEFORE. A quick glances does suggest a need to fix the article. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Fingerprints of the Gods[edit]

I noticed that IP editors tend to mess up the talk page regularly (I tried to improve this), but there's also a particular one now who edit wars there and posted an apparent attack at my talk page yesterday. My patience is a bit exhausted so am posting this here in hope that others watchlist it and/or answer to the latest talk page query. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about Biden's health[edit]

Something to be on the lookout for[22]. Same as with Hillary and Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

William Lane Craig[edit]

Someone keeps insisting that the article should cover an event that did not happen, plus the opinion of an unrelated person that it should have happened. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is a terrible WP:COATRACK being written from the perspective of Christian apologetics without nary an attempt to establish independent prominence of the ideas being lovingly promoted (e.g., that astrophysics proves God). Please come help clean it up. jps (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Update: currently at dispute resolutionPaleoNeonate – 22:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
After some failed starts, there seems to be some movement on paring down the article. Help would be appreciated. (It's not as hot in the kitchen any more!) jps (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein[edit]

WP:CB reverted at [23]. More eyes needed. Stating described his professional scientific conclusion that Atheists could not be scientists is an insult to our intelligence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed. Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living Spirit that moves the universe."
— Albert Einstein, Third conversation (1948): William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), p. 94 Sfbmod (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding WP:CB as cited by me above to the article will be seen as WP:TROLLing. Ascribe a statement so utterly inane to Einstein is character assassination. Then Sfbmod went into a wild tangent about John 1:1. WP:AGF does not require us to allow other editors to insert inane rants into Wikipedia articles. He/she should be indeffed according to WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. "Einstein and Spinoza were Christians" is stuff for Uncyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Sfbmod this whole Spinoza / Einstein thing is pretty much the textbook definition of WP:SYNTH it's not going to fly and I recommend you relent lest you end up at WP:1AM. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Paris Herouni[edit]

Some fringes material has been added to his article that I've fixed, but I'm not happy with the new edits to the "scientific section". Doug Weller talk 15:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Chemtrails[edit]


Classic promotion of fringe ideas, blah blah blah... More eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 16:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The warning templates put on other user pages suggest familiarity with Wikipedia beyond the 34 edits they made so far (counting the one from the probable sockpuppet...). --mfb (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but I have a script that shows me if an editor is blocked, and those articles don't show up any blocked editors at all recently (none in the last 250 edits). So I don't think we can find a possible master. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Estulin - conspiracy theorist or investigative journalist?[edit]

It's just been changed from the former to the latter, I don't see sufficient sources in the article for either. It's a pretty poor article at the moment. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. For 12 years this has been up but it looks pretty empty. Has nothing else happened with Daniel Estulin? It does not look like it supports much on investigative journalism at least. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Coherent intelligence[edit]

Hi - just came across Coherent intelligence while doing a bit of NPP. Is this a thing? A google search came up with a few hits for the term, and a lot of them seem to be connected with the Igor Val. Danilov referred to in this article. The sourcing doesn't look great, and the whole thing smelled a bit fringey to me (quantum entanglement in neurons?) so thought I'd come here for a second opinion before doing anything further. GirthSummit (blether) 21:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Article is based on dalinov primary sources, no secondary sources:
Google Scholar Books
"coherent intelligence" danilow 0 1 (facebook)
"coherent intelligence" danilov 0 (1 mentioning Nicholas Daniloff) 1 book by danilov
And reads like nonsense to me. Dump it. DVdm (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a mix of group dynamics and quantum mysticism... —PaleoNeonate – 00:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
With a pinch of Hundredth monkey effect, perhaps.—Odysseus1479 02:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
If there are other sources talking about this idea other than Igor Val. Danilov, then perhaps it has some hope, but otherwise, no. I see that the article was made today so give it a week or two I would say for author to develop? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I was sure I had seen this before... I found a mention of a deleted draft at User talk:Tom Commeine. —PaleoNeonate – 00:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
But searching for the name I find a footballer and a computer programmer. —PaleoNeonate – 00:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: the articles Social reality, Quantum entanglement, Group decision-making, Collective intelligence, Social collaboration, Parapsychology and Extrasensory perception have been updated to include text about CI, audit and copyright-check welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 08:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

All reverted by DVdm and user warned, thanks! —PaleoNeonate – 12:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yep. Copy of my comment at AFD Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Coherent intelligence:
Note: author of article is spamming links to their work in various articles: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Compare recurring phrase "...scientist, researcher in the field of communication and sociology Igor Val. Danilov..." - DVdm (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted per WP:SNOW. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Italy[edit]

A user has been rather zealously over-tagging the article on the premise that they don't believe there's sufficient historical evidence that Jews suffered oppression in Italy, particularly during WWII. This user has also been active trying to redefine Fascism without much success, so I fear the over-tagging is as a result of a fringe POV with regard to the nature of the ideology. Eyes would be appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I posted a request at WP:JEWISH-HISTPaleoNeonate – 11:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I'm not willing to edit war over an over-tagging situation, but it's really quite ridiculous. I'm sure some of the people at the Jewish History project will be interested in keeping the quality of articles so closely connected to the holocaust in some semblance of order. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea how many people saw it or care however, from the page information, "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits: 18". —PaleoNeonate – 12:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Update: tagging reverted, user blocked for general WP:DEPaleoNeonate – 23:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Came here to say just that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Waldorf education[edit]

Unsure if this is the best noticeboard but since Waldorf is not mainstream, possibly: some criticism has recently been removed, I'm not sure if it was due, etc. Eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 14:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Waldorf is pretty fringey. And those deletions weren't copacetic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It's fringe alright. As with any Steiner bollocks, there'll always be push back against anything critical. Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223 audited it and restored the content (adding: copacetic is a great word), thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Lately, they've been in the news a lot as ground zero for epidemics caused by vaccine refusal. jps (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I checked that the article mentioned this (and it does). Will keep on watchlist, —PaleoNeonate – 14:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
When I was working at an IB school I had a friend who was interested in Waldorf for her kid and we had a few... disagreements... regarding the relative merits of the curricula. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Deep trance identification[edit]

Lots of words, little meaning. Before I AfD this, does anybody know whether there's any decent sourcing that might redeem this topic? Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In 2014 with John Overdurf, Carson and Marion wrote and published the only full book on DTI available. Sounds like there is only one non-notable book about the topic. The other sources given don’t explicitly deal with it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
While I'm familiar with related Indonesian mythology-drama shows and various meditation systems (including some where we identify with an object or deity), I didn't know about this particular DTI version of it. I'm doubtful, but it would be interesting if regressive hypnosis would allow child-efficiency-like learning which seems to a claim here... The other more common claim is that under hypnosis one could tap into collective/higher resources, which is more a subjective illusion than fact... Assessment: fringe parapsychology? Then there's the pseudoneurology supposedly involving the mirror neurons... —PaleoNeonate – 14:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Alien abduction category cleanup[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Category:Alien abduction phenomenon

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Category:Alien abduction researchers

Help.

jps (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Carahunge and Paris Herouni[edit]

Recently User:Isabekian, who has made 25 edits in their 7 months here, has been adding material from a reliable source to both of these articles. I've managed to get them to accept that the source doesn't support the use of the word confirmed, but they are still insisting on not mentioning anything about the source saying that the issue as to whether Carahunge was a megalithic observatory is disputed in the source. I could have posted to NPOVN but as this is an archaeological fringe issue I think FTN is more appropriate, and most editors here are at least as well experienced with NPOV issues as editors at NPOVN.

Here is what I posted to their talk page. I thought that I had gone into enough detail to allow them to rewrite the article to meet our policy, but instead they have reverted me and accused me ov violating NPOV and not acting in good faith.

Your text was:

"Subsequently, different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs[1], Irakli Simonia and Badri Jijelava[2]) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) confirmed the astronomical significance of the Carahunge mega-lithic complex."

That's a misrepresentation of the source. The source has two relevant sentences: "The expedition supported the idea that Carahunge had an astronomical significance, concluding that the monument is aligned to rising points of the sun, moon, and several bright stars." It also says "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance" - so, "probably" and "supports" - neither word is anything close to confirmed. That's the misrepresentation.

Then there's our Neutral point of view policy linked in the section heading. The next part of the second sentence is "(but see also ▶Chap. 127, “Carahunge - A Critical Assessment” for a different view)." Your edit doesn't suggest that is in the source at all. To follow our policy you must include relevant information from chapter 127. I've reverted one edit entirely and am about to revert the other - please rewrite them complying with our guidelines.

I realise that you are new, but I would think that without even reading our policy an editor should understand that they shouldn't use words not backed in the source and should not cherry pick just one point of view from a source. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to assume good faith, but till now your actions are just agressive. If you believe a word I used is not fine, you could: 1) discuss it at talk at first, to not start an WP:WAR, 2) to change that word, but not delete the whole text. Your actions are against WP:NPOV. Isabekian (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone else please either tell me I'm talking nonsense or help this editor learn to comply with our policy? Doug Weller talk 16:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bochkarev N, Bochkarev Y (2005) Armenian archaeoastronomical monuments Carahunge (Zorakarer) and Metsamor: review and personal impressions. In: Koiva M, Pustylnik I, Vesik L (eds) Cosmic catastrophes. Center for Cultural History and Folkloristics and Tartu Observatory, Tartu, pp 27–54
  2. ^ I. Simonia, B. Jijelava Astronomy in the Ancient Caucasus // Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy (pp.1443-1451)

Educology?[edit]

Hi FTN,

The educology article is nominated for deletion. The nominator, Crossroads1 has identified it as a fringe theory. I'm posting here because I'm not sure if that's true and it could use the eyeballs of people with experience identifying fringe academic concepts on Wikipedia. The article is a lengthy combination textbook/essay, largely written by one author and citing an awful lot of publications written by people involved with the development of this concept (and in journals dedicated to it). In other words, it has some of the hallmarks of an article on a fringe academic concept on Wikipedia. That said, there are indeed also lots of sources that could be independent (some of which are in languages I don't speak or otherwise don't have access to). Opinions welcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a tough one. I think it was basically invented by a husband-wife team who devoted most of their professional lives to unsuccessfully getting people to adopt their perspective. [31] It reminds me a bit of New Cybernetics (Gordon Pask). It's definitely WP:FRINGE, but I'm not sure whether deletion is the right thing to do. The most cited paper on educology is this one, but I cannot seem to find any of the mainstream citations dealing with the "educology". They seem to more-or-less ignore the neologism in favor of dealing with the substance of the praxis. jps (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The proponents of educology would argue that it is not a theory at all, fringe or otherwise, but a field of study (that can still be fringe of course). The debate at AFD largely centres around whether educology is any different from education, pedagogy, or educational psychology. By the way, this dates back several decades prior to the work of Mr and Mrs Maccia. See Harding, Essays in Educology, 1956. Something more than half a century old is hardly a neologism, surely at least a mesologism by now. SpinningSpark 13:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that book might be a joke: [32]. "being the first report from the archives of the Association for Preservation of Humor in Educological Workers." jps (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Suggest redirect to Pedagogy as it appears to be an outdated infrequently used term for the same. This might be more appropriate than deletion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
That subtitle appears to be a joke, but the book isn't as the citations in this paper make clear. They also cite an even earlier work by Hardng, Anthology of Educology, 1951, discuss his work, and discuss the use of educology as a term. SpinningSpark 15:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, that paper seems to have missed the joke (I can read the text on Google Books and, I can assure you, the book is very much tongue-and-cheek, and I assume the other three books about educology from the 50s and 60s are as well). In any case, Elizabeth Steiner admits that this earlier reference is joking and describes the coining of the term she uses here on p. 14. jps (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, my mistake. Another researcher trying to prove the old adage that PhD != intelligent. SpinningSpark 15:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Lots of WP:SPAs active here. I wonder if there is some off-wiki coordination. jps (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibly of interest[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Theory,_hypothesis,_proof,_phenomenon,_...

I think there are some words not included at WP:WTA for which we could use some explication. What do you think?

jps (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Herbalism (again)[edit]

We eats it whole

There a new editor active here, and this once again reveals how confusingly-partitioned this topic space is on Wikipedia - whether something belongs in Herbalism or Medicinal plants.

One thing I notice is that "herbalism" is a poorly-defined term. Our article currently starts by defining it (unsourced) as "the study of the botany and use of medicinal plants." Really? I checked the NHS, Harrison's Internal Medicine and even the NCCIH and see herbalism is not well-defined in these. On the other hand, "herbal medicine" (an alternative headword for the article) is well-defined. For example the NHS calls herbal medicines "those with active ingredients made from plant parts, such as leaves, roots or flowers". I think that renaming our herbalism article to "herbal medicine" could be a good step towards clarifying this topic space. Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think herbal medicine is the correct heading. The confusion is that "herablist" is the appropriate term to describe a practitioner. Can you just move it? I doubt anyone would mind. jps (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It would need to swap with the redirect (Herbal medicine) so I think some admin jiggery-pokery is needed do this properly and keep the Talk together. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There's guidance for how to do this at WP:ROUNDROBIN - you need the page mover permission though, not sure if you have that? I don't, but Barkeep49 did something along these lines for me once, he might be willing to help out. GirthSummit (blether) 14:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm leaving but could do it when I return later on (if noone did yet). —PaleoNeonate – 14:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that this swap needs a formal move discussion as this area seems rife enough with high passion editors that "someone could reasonably disagree with the move". Absent some discussion, or attempt at discussion, along those lines I would not feel comfortable doing a round robin page swap and using my page mover right. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The move was done, please ping me if any bug shows up, —PaleoNeonate – 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmm I just noticed the above message. If this move is contested then yes formal discussion will be the way to go (after reverting if necessary). —PaleoNeonate – 21:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Astrological age[edit]

This page caught my attention when I discovered that it was incorrectly tagged as {{in-universe}} rather than {{fringe theories}}. There is absolutely no scientific perspective whatsoever. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Does it need a scientific perspective?
The scientific perspective is simply that astrology is all nonsense from top to bottom. Not really much to get into that's specific to this one technical detail of astrology, is there? ApLundell (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Any attempt to write something like that in the article should be immediately reverted, in my opinion, as introducing POV and hence a breach of the WP:NPOV policy. Don't get me wrong, I think astrology is nonsense, but it is not Wikipedia's place to say so. Just describe the subject and leave readers to make up their own mind. There is no scientific evidence for the beliefs of Christianity either, but its article doesn't feel the need to say so (although it does cover the interactions of Christianity with science). A better question is "is there a scientific perspective at all?", or has science just simply ignored it. If the former, we can report it, if the latter, then there is nothing to write.
I would also dispute that this is a fringe theory, given the large number of adherents it has. If it were a scientific theory, then it would certainly be fringe science, but it is not. It is not within science at all. Claims that astrology is a science is certainly fringe, but we have astrology and science to cover that aspect. SpinningSpark 08:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The article is a bit fawning and needs to be toned down (it's really an article on precession of the equinox with added woo). It is definitely a fringe theory because WP:FRINGE is not about the number of adherents, it's about whether there is relevant WP:MAINSTREAM acceptance of claims in the relevant epistemic community. jps (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The relevant community here would be expert practitioners of astrology would it not? Are you saying astrological age is not generally accepted as part of the canon of astrology? I'm not arguing either way, just asking. SpinningSpark 18:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Um, no. There is no such thing as an "expert practitioner of astrology" just as there is no thing as an "expert practitioner of creation science". jps (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. The relevant community for this article is experts in the field of astrology. Regardless of whether that's a reality-based worldview. ApLundell (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Experts in astrology need not be practitioners. jps (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We can, should, and already do say that astrology is nonsense (Astrology is a pseudoscience that...); it's absolutely a fringe topic. It would be relatively easy to take a chainsaw to the uncited and badly-cited material, but without an infusion of reliable and independent sources that won't make the article good, just short and full of holes that anyone interested in the topic will notice. Smowo (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Saying something is a pseudoscience is not the same as saying it is nonsense. It is just saying that it is not science (usually of something that is couched in scientific language). Rationalists will likely consider that much the same thing, but Wikipedia shouldn't take an opinion on people's beliefs. SpinningSpark 10:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians again.[edit]

An editor has appeared at the Persecution of Christians article attempting to insert rather WP:PEACOCKed reports suggesting Christianity is experiencing a wide-spread genocide and is the most persecuted religion in the world. Eyes would be appreciated here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Richat structure on steroids[edit]

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.

Just a notice.Face-smile.svgPaleoNeonate – 23:25, 18 June 2019 (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.

Scared Straight![edit]

Lately YouTube somehow suggested this video. Although I knew that boarding schools existed, I had to try to convince myself that this was only a TV "reality show" on the theme. On the other hand, I then found this article (and pass-by deleted a troubling comment from its talk page). What surprised me is that there's no mention of child abuse, I have not looked yet, but would not be surprised to find reliable sources about this. Since the belief that this type of authoritarian and abusive treatment could prevent recidivism is fringe, maybe this noticeboard fits... —PaleoNeonate – 23:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Cydonia (Mars)[edit]

A SPA editor put it up for proposed deletion with the comment, "Only skeptical POV accepted" after re-inserting an image made by the SPA showing "Purported alignments among several mounds in the vicinity of the Face on Mars". --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at Cydonia (Mars)[edit]

Diagram of symmetry.
Illustration created by User:Diagramofsymmetry roughly based on the only slightly crazy JBIS paper.

Not sure what the issues are but it needs eyes. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The "purported alignment" of points on Mars is cited to Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. Somebody should check if it's contained in the source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The paper[33] does define those points on the surface, and point out what it claims are interesting properties of the pentagon A-B-D-E-G.
It also briefly mentions pentagon A-D-E-P-G.
...But the illustration being inserted in to the article is an original creation, apparently illustrating both those pentagons at once? I'm not 100% sure what it illustrates.
The paper, while a little over-eager and optimistic, doesn't seem entirely crazy to me. It's more a math exercise pointing out a potential new technique for SETI investigation. ApLundell (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Facilitated communication BLPs[edit]

Several BLPs associated with facilitated communication have been active recently. Currently the Amy Sequenzia article is at AfD here (opened 16 June).

It also looks like this has been at ANI recently - one editor has just been topic banned but another section has been opened here. Sunrise (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The topic ban for Anomalapropos was a good ban. He or she was only here to push fringe views without realizing how far fringe they are. (Which is common enough, I suppose.)
Oddly, it looks like one of the other users[34] that have "!voted" on the Amy_Squenzia deletion is now banned.
It would not surprise me if Wikiman2718 also winds up banned, he's rather ... zealous in his interpretation and implementation of WP:Fringe. (And he has the irritating habit of adding yellow highlighting to other people's comments on talk pages.)
That would make three. Of the relatively small group of people who are even aware this article exists.
This topic is really bringing out the worst in people. ApLundell (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh good. Looks like Wikiman2718 is going to be ok. ApLundell (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies[edit]

Looks like a fringe publication with minimal impact, mostly notable for promotion of racist views of intelligence. Currently under discussion here. It doesn't look like a reliable source, but I know there are some preeminent bad-journal hounds here who could probably help demonstrate whether this suspicion is correct. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Lorence G. Collins[edit]

Seems to be a fringe scientist, a lot of OR in his article. I just reverted some and was told " I shall be putting it on again, don't you worry - till it sticks !!!" - see User talk:Rudolf Pohl. He's an anti-Creationist, which is nice, but as his article says, "He subsequently received fierce opposition from the established petrology community. Therefore, he decided to write books, and in 1997 he created his own website and published his findings digitally." Forgot, the editor I've reverted is in touch with Collins, perhaps writing this on his behalf. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson and vaccines[edit]

Additional input is needed on the Sharyl Attkisson page about how to described her coverage of and personal views on vaccines, and what sources to use. There are on-going disputes (that the subject of the article is herself personally involved in on the talk page) as to whether she's promoting fringe claims about vaccines or not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Subhash Kak and fringe science[edit]

Subhash Kak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In April a one edit SPA added a long complaint saying that Kak was being treated unfairly and a new editor has now chimed in. Looks like Hindutva vs science. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)