Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Conveying the acceptance level of a fringe idea in the scientific community
The Astrology article says, "Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no validity or explanatory power for describing the universe." The reference cited does not mention "scientific community" or "rejected", but says (I presume this is this is what's being cited), "But most scientists as well as researchers in humanities (sociologists) are strongly opposed to all forms of astrology." Despite this imprecision, the wording seems to have gone unchallenged for some time.
On the other hand, the framing of the acceptance level of "morphic resonance" has been under frequent challenge. There were objections to using "rejected" because there were no sources saying "reject". Then there was a challenge to using "scientific community" because sources did not say "scientific community". And numerous other challenges. Not long ago the "widely" in "widely rejected" was challenged, though not at the Sheldrake article or talk page. There seemed to be agreement that "widely" was a WP:WEASEL word or WP:OR.
I recently set out to construct an unassailable sentence by using the exact terms of a given source: "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash." I translate this to: "Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis has been dismissed by almost all scientists who have examined it". Of all the versions so far, that seems the least controversial. Not so fast. The very same person who raised the complaint about "widely" completely removes the whole paragraph of criticism in the lead containing this new sentence.
One reason for posting to FTN is that I'm trying to figure out if there is something about the clientele that Sheldrake attracts. For example another challenge to "scientific community" was made on the grounds that "there is no comprehensive list of scientists who reject Sheldrake's work." Yet homeopathy says "the scientific community regards homeopathy as nonsense" without any mention of "scientific community" in the source. That this has been an ongoing problem suggests that we may have a clientele that cannot be satisfied, and I'd like to get feedback on that idea. Maybe there is a fringe FAQ which addresses this, but I couldn't find it. vzaak (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The closest we have to what you are proposing is found at WP:ITA. I spent a number of months haggling over the wording of that section which used to be called "particular attribution". There is a tendency for Fringe Pushers (for lack of a better term) to want to cite broadly applicable criticism to individual critics and then describe the fringe theories using the opposite framing so that the idea is described without attribution to the person who made the claim. In reality, the framing needs to be flipped so that mainstream evaluation is described without attribution to one particular source while the fringe ideas are tied directly to who is making the peculiar claim. In particular, fringe theories need to be framed in relation to their WP:PROMINENCE. In other words, if only a handful of people say, "electricity doesn't exist and Faraday was a fraud", such an idea would necessarily need to be attributed to the specific person or persons making the claim. To say, "the scientific community accepts electricity as an extant phenomenon" and then citing a basic physics text is appropriate framing since the source reliably presents ideas which are generally accepted and mainstream. I would be happy to workshop a section on "framing" at WT:FRINGE, if you think it would be a good idea. It would stand well with other principles like WP:PARITY and WP:ONEWAY. jps (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good observation about flipped framing. Perhaps it would be politically incorrect, but I think the most helpful thing would be a "guide to fringers" that would for example include the scenario you described. "When fringers do A, you should point out B; when they do C, mention D" etc, because the patterns are there. It would also mention this noticeboard, which I didn't know about when I first started. At one point I had gathered together 17 references in order to show fringers that, indeed, Sheldrake is not accepted by the scientific community (still unsuccessful, of course).
- Another politically tenuous issue is dealing with scientific illiteracy/incompetence. WP:INCOMPETENCE is fine as a general policy, but fringers have a peculiar mix of being both educated and ignorant; technically competent but otherwise out of their element. This is very hard to address. There is one person on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake who is the epitome of this, a Dunning-Kruger effect cranked to 11. Perhaps fringers should go through a checklist of basic scientific ideas and how they relate to WP policy, and if they disagree then they should be informed that they have a problem with WP policies themselves, which obviously can't be addressed on a fringe article talk page. vzaak (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:FLAT? LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Another politically tenuous issue is dealing with scientific illiteracy/incompetence. WP:INCOMPETENCE is fine as a general policy, but fringers have a peculiar mix of being both educated and ignorant; technically competent but otherwise out of their element. This is very hard to address. There is one person on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake who is the epitome of this, a Dunning-Kruger effect cranked to 11. Perhaps fringers should go through a checklist of basic scientific ideas and how they relate to WP policy, and if they disagree then they should be informed that they have a problem with WP policies themselves, which obviously can't be addressed on a fringe article talk page. vzaak (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, that increases my faith in humanity a little bit. While in retrospect I should have found it on my own, the essay is listed last in WP:FRINGE and the title doesn't reflect the content very well. I've created a redirect WP:dealing with fringe advocates. Maybe another abbreviation would be suitable as well, like FRINGEPUSH or something. vzaak (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:CHEESE too. Alas, only essays. jps (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that Dunning and Kruger and or illiteracy/incompetence are actually in play, but more likely, mischief. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think a combination of both, since he advocates for Sheldrake outside of WP and is negative toward "skeptics". (There's no outing here since his WP username matches the name he uses elsewhere.) vzaak (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think that someone who has expressed an intention to conduct a social experiment on the Talk pages of controversial Wikipedia articles might be best ignored rather than fed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, anyone considered going to AE about the admission by the tumbleman about being a troll? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Their current activity at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake appears to be a continuation of their mission which entails provoking conflict on various internet fora while outwardly not violating any TOS policies in order to observe and record consequent results. I think WP:NOTTHERAPY and perhaps WP:ROPE applies here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, anyone considered going to AE about the admission by the tumbleman about being a troll? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think that someone who has expressed an intention to conduct a social experiment on the Talk pages of controversial Wikipedia articles might be best ignored rather than fed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think a combination of both, since he advocates for Sheldrake outside of WP and is negative toward "skeptics". (There's no outing here since his WP username matches the name he uses elsewhere.) vzaak (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that Dunning and Kruger and or illiteracy/incompetence are actually in play, but more likely, mischief. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:CHEESE too. Alas, only essays. jps (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Pushing antiquity on Jainism articles
Could someone take a look at some Jainism-related articles, in which a clique of WP editors have for some time now been promoting antiquity (for their religion). Karma in Jainism and Indus Valley Civilization are two examples. I have created a subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism, which has solid scholarly sources (please disregard the lede there: it was written for an RfC). Contrast my page with the dubious sources these editors are using. Please advise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I reverted some stuff on the IVC page a few days back, but it looks like there's far more that's been added slowly over the years in multiple locations dating the origins to Mature Harappan! Some sort of concerted look in is required to figure out where all this has crept in. —SpacemanSpiff 09:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The unknowable claim that Jainism (and Buddhism) took or grew out of non-Vedic beliefs that might conceivably go back as far as the IVC is not unreasonable but needs to be very tentatively phrased if it is made at all. That many Jains now believe this is clear, but the better sort of Jain sources on Jainism don't push it too hard. Equally the later "foundation" of Jainism should not be overstressed and made to sound as though it was all new ideas, which much or most of it probably wasn't. But clear evidence is lacking. Some standard sentences dealing with this need to to be compiled using your sources, and used where appropriate, which will be in some articles on Jainism, and none on the IVC. An improved History of Jainism, currently very skimpy on the early period, might help here. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- A search for possible problems is here]. This user[1] added the material recently removed at IVC, note they have another account. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, Thanks everyone for your suggestions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- A search for possible problems is here]. This user[1] added the material recently removed at IVC, note they have another account. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I will try to keep an eye on this when I find some time. The IVC article needs constant watching, but it depresses me almost too much to keep going back to it and find my earlier work replaced by new layers of bs, this is the sort of thing that tends me to drive off WP, so I try not to visit these vandal-magnet pages too often any more. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Somatics: a zombie article?
I nominated this article for deletion earlier this year, and the result was that is was deleted by default[2]. Then, by a process I don't really understand, it sprang back into life. Here it stands today, largely consisting of meandering unsourced content, treating a non-notable topic, and garnering an increasing list of dubious-looking material for "Further reading". What to do? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd contact Mark Arsten, who closed it as delete, to see if it was ever actually deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The AfD was closed as a WP:SOFTDELETE. Ronhjones then contested the deletion, and Somatics came back from the dead. I think it's a bad idea to have articles full of content like this:
Most working methods in somatics identify new capacities for movement potential and offer bio-creative resolutions to functional and developmental issues. Many approaches utilize neuro-muscular repatterning and tissue re-organization, as well as directed intention and touch, to facilitate changes at the deepest levels of experience, even utilizing cellular and embryological information to achieve change in the "mind of the tissue" – another concept central to somatics work
- ...but I'm sure we can work something out. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, basically since no one other than the nominator supported deletion I closed it as I would have closed a PROD, i.e. can be recreated at any time. It can be re-nominated for deletion at any time. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem was the nobody voted, even after 3 weeks. I think a general problem here is that sometimes off-the-wall fringe-y articles don't fit well into the AfD categories. I wish there was something like a "fringe articles" category ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think there is a different problem, which systematically affects low-notability Fringe articles; that the sources, although probably independent, are themselves somewhat fringey and do not take a "mainstream" view of the topic. So, we have a topic with apparent notability, but it's impossible to build neutral content.
- I think the GNG is a great benchmark - one of the consequences is that its requirements (substantial coverage by independent sources) ensure you have a really strong basis for your content. However, that can fail with fringey topics, so we're left with many topics where you can make a good case that the subject passes the GNG but you can't actually make it into a decent article. bobrayner (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem was the nobody voted, even after 3 weeks. I think a general problem here is that sometimes off-the-wall fringe-y articles don't fit well into the AfD categories. I wish there was something like a "fringe articles" category ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, basically since no one other than the nominator supported deletion I closed it as I would have closed a PROD, i.e. can be recreated at any time. It can be re-nominated for deletion at any time. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I undeleted it as a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_100#Somatics - thus it was a contested soft delete. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I have found that the best way to deal with articles on topics that are "notable within a fringe community" (but not really notable outside of that community) is to merge them, rather than to try outright deletion. Such topics can often be considered "note-worthy" if placed in the proper context... ie they should be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but may not rate a stand alone article. I am not sure what article Somatics would be merged into (not my area of expertise)... but I suggest it as an alternative. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Anton Parks
Anton Parks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I get the feeling this is acting a bit like a coatrack, but I'm not sure what to do about it. Needs some context, at least. Help? jps (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is he actually notable? A quick search turned up lots of fringe websites, but only a couple of brief passing mentions in legit sources that were compiling a list of beliefs related to Zecharia Sitchin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hard to say. He might be the Giorgio A. Tsoukalos of France. Can't tell. jps (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Coverage of his ideas are cited to Nexus (magazine) and two French mags roughly equivalent to "Secret Conspiracies" and "History's Mysteries", they hardly seem like objective sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, you've convinced me. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Parks. jps (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Coverage of his ideas are cited to Nexus (magazine) and two French mags roughly equivalent to "Secret Conspiracies" and "History's Mysteries", they hardly seem like objective sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hard to say. He might be the Giorgio A. Tsoukalos of France. Can't tell. jps (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Conversations with God
Neale Donald Walsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Conversations with God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These articles could use some serious editorial work. Most of the content is sourced to fringe material and credulous commentators.
jps (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia proudly lists the "modern" texts that were channeled.
List of modern channelled texts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovingly curated, it seems. How should this be described properly? How is it verified that these texts are channeled?
jps (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I look at this every now and again, and despair. If it were a list of texts that claimed to be channeled that would be a bit better; but even then there'd be a lot of work to tidy this list up. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, I have never seen it before, and wish to never see it again. it's ... awful. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It appears to be a List article that houses a number of other List articles: Timeline of Channeling, List of entities and mediums, List of works Inspired by channeling, plus 25 mini-bios that are either non-notable individuals or POV forks of existing bios. Needs to be broken up and cleaned up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've added a notability template to the article, and have suggested on the talk page that if the required separate notability isn't established soon, that maybe it be broken up into pages whose notability can be established. Considering that a lot of these channeled texts seem to be rather seriously disagreeing among themselves regarding a lot of things, I think it would probably be more reasonable to have the lists as specific sections of works on individuals, or perhaps as separate lists of channeled texts by channeller, or channelling group, or whatever. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It appears to be a List article that houses a number of other List articles: Timeline of Channeling, List of entities and mediums, List of works Inspired by channeling, plus 25 mini-bios that are either non-notable individuals or POV forks of existing bios. Needs to be broken up and cleaned up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Tea tree oil
Some to-and-fro here about whether tea tree oil is effective or not for a range of human health problems, and what constitutes a reliable source. More eyes would be useful. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am still not convinced by the direction this article is taking: the science seems to be downplayed by some editors because it portrays tea tree oil as something other that a generally effective medication (it may in fact be sometimes hazardous); and - the article is sprouting tags. More eyes could help ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Fringe squared: fringe theories about Wikipedia's treatment of fringe theories
Last week someone wrote up a conspiracy theory about the Rupert Sheldrake article. Sheldrake himself has now bought into it, and has expanded upon it. I've written a response. I don't know to what extent we should bother with this craziness. Had I noticed it sooner I might have tried to mitigate confusion. But perhaps there would be no stopping the crazy train in any case. Would it be appropriate to post my response near the top of the Sheldrake talk page? Or just ignore? The concern is that a response may just lead to more conspiracy, etc etc. vzaak (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Personally I would suggest ignoring it. I would see little benefit in trying to reason with conspiracy theorists, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Vzaak, is there any chance you can email or inform Susan Gerbic about this? Her Wikipedia account is Sgerbic (talk · contribs). Like you have written in your response these woo believers have got confused and now they have mislead Sheldrake himself who has brought into the conspiracy theory and published a nutty article about it on his blog. As far as I know Gerbic and The Guerrilla Skepticism team have not been anywhere near the Sheldrake article and are nothing to do with it, they have never edited that article. The conspiracy theory started with Craig Weiler (a self-proclaimed psychic) and has no basis in fact. Dan skeptic (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I've not seen any of the guerilla sceptics editing that article (their edits generally tend to be uncontroversial for the most part). One can't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory :) IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
By the way I notified sgerbic, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The reason I was concerned enough to reply is that Sheldrake may possibly not be making an empty statement about financial backers, in which case this crazy train could potentially arrive in consequences-ville. I'm also astounded that Weiler (1) thanked me and knows I meant well; (2) turns around and says I'm part of a "mafia" on his blog; (3) insults his readers by assuming nobody will look at the talk page which exonerates me -- and apparently nobody has. vzaak (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- It really is just an empty statement. I agree with IRWolfie; ignore. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Conspiracy-mongers love it when those they accuse of conspiracy respond to their charges. It allows them to keep the "story" alive with a series of counter accusations and rebuttals. Agree with IRWolfie, best to ignore it. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- What is going on at the moment is just an extension of a well known troll's bizarre social media / conflict resolution experimentation, as I have noted on the Sheldrake Talk page. He isn't after resolution of any issues, as the conflict he creates is the effect he requires - he will be pleased to see this section of this page for example. The disturbance and disquiet he foments is his goal. He has been trolling the whole world for some years. Ignore is the best way. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 16:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Conspiracy-mongers love it when those they accuse of conspiracy respond to their charges. It allows them to keep the "story" alive with a series of counter accusations and rebuttals. Agree with IRWolfie, best to ignore it. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course we can't reach the hard-core conspiracy-minded, but for the rest there is essential information that they're missing. I wish there were some way to reach out to regular-minded people who may read Sheldrake's blog and think there is at least a hint of truth, when there isn't. Maybe I'm too involved because my WP name is being slandered in a truly bizarre fashion. vzaak (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone is right, I was wrong. There's no sense addressing the crazy train. I've flagged my response for deletion. No more crazy train on Wikipedia. vzaak (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Unflag your response vzaak (talk) as it is a worthwhile read for those who don't know the background, and explains events quite well, just don't worry about the whole affair. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Not much of a conspiracy theory - it's actually based on the editors behaviors and agenda on the page. I think the reason editors are assuming that vzaak and others are apart of the GSM is because they appear to be editing with the exact same agenda as the GSM. which appears to many to be that the skeptical POV is more important than the NPOV, and that's a reasonable concern. Plus, clearly you all co-ordinate together like can be evidenced here. That the fact that the GSM is on wikipedia is of course not a conspiracy, they are quite open about it. So it's a reasonable association.
The GSM is not the problem, what is the problem is when editors appear to edit a page, wiki lawyer WP policy to support a Skeptical POV above all else, avoid reaching consensus, avoid direct questions, bully and intimidate editors, and most importantly, absolutely fail to deliver verifiable sources based on facts and use personal opinions as reasoned arguments on a BLP. As for conspiracy theories, I would check this talk discussion and references to a 'troll with a social media experiment who fosters global disturbance as his goal' as a good candidate for a proper debunking. Always a good policy to be skeptical about our own ridiculous ideas just as much as we are skeptical about anyone else's. Work reasonably here guys, we just want facts and reasoned arguments - if your not GSM, none of you seem to be contributing to the spirit of WP on that page regardless and if you are GSM, you're really making them look bad. The Tumbleman (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Tumbleman you keep talking about policies of Wikipedia but I believe you have misunderstood some of them. You have repeatedly claimed that Sheldrake's ideas are not fringe. I haven't been on Wikipedia very long and I don't claim to be an expert but I think I understand it better than yourself. You seem to be wanting every article to be entirely "neutral" on paranormal topics, for example if it was up to you, you would have creationism without any critical coverage. Let's say there was 200 scientific references describing creationism as pseudoscience and only 4 fringe references claiming it was science... your kind of reasoning seems to be saying present a "neutral" point of view by giving both sides equal weight but that doesn't work because the over-all majority of the sources label it as pseudoscience. This is the same for the Sheldrake article. Do you not see this? There is over-whelming references which describe Sheldrake's views as pseudoscience but you claim everyone of these is biased from a skeptical agenda. You may think you are improving the article, but I really don't see how you can. Dan skeptic (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dan skeptic I am working on the page to keep a NPOV. If I misunderstand something, I am open to be corrected. PLEASE correct me on the talk page, I keep asking for it. However if I misunderstand something, why do none of the editors on this list, who are clearly co-ordinating with each other with an agenda that is virtually identical to GSM, simply respond to my questions, explain your sources, etc? That would seem like the reasonable thing to do. Instead, when editors here are faced with a question, or a reasoned argument in relationship to WP, they don't provide reasoned arguments, they put scrutiny on me as an individual and try to get me blocked or banned? I have stated over and over that I am agnostic towards sheldrake's theories. I am fascinated by the debate Sheldrake causes, and have been following the debate since TEDX controversy. I am familiar with the philosophical arguments and wanted to help make his page better. I have repeatedly requested to make a consensus. I have not even edited on the page yet, I have been making all of my arguments in the TALK section seeking to find consensus on the points I raise. Focusing on an editor, revealing an identity, talking about an editor on a talk page about a past history, etc etc all of these are against wiki guidelines. If your arguments are so solid, then you should be able to be consistent with them on the talk page. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The above is a "conspiracy theory article" and so attracts its fair share of bizarre and fringe stuff at the best of times. But today an IP has decided to add information cited directly to www
My questions are: Are we now considereing this "source" reliable enough to support the inclusion of material here? Does this conspiracy theory within a conspiracy theory deserve inclusion at all? Shouldn't we have secondary sources to verify that this is a significant enough a part of this "material" for inclusion in the article? Would be good to have extra eyes in the short term, more contributions in the longer term. Stalwart111 13:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
If nothing else, the "source" in question is just an e-commerce site designed to sell books. It's also a WP:PRIMARY source, even if we decide it is reliable. Stalwart111 13:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- As used... I think it qualifies as a "reliable". The source is Primary... being used to support a statement about what a particular group of fringe proponents believe. When it comes to supporting statements about what a group of people believe, the most reliable sources are primary sources written by the believers themselves. Of course, how we phrase this is important... the reader needs something to tell them: We are now telling you what fringe proponents believe... Wikipedia is not saying the beliefs are true. We do this by directly attributing the belief (saying, for example: "According to the fringe conspiracy website Lawofone.info, the Men in Black are blah blah blah. <cite website saying this>")
- That said... reliability is not the be-all-and-end-all of inclusion. There is a more important question that needs to be asked: should this specific article mention what this specific group of fringe proponents believe? We need to examine how common the viewpoint expressed on the Lawofone website is within the context of other MIB fringe proponents. If their take on the Men in Black represents beliefs that many fringe proponents share, then it is worth noting in the article. If, on the other hand, that website represents a "fringe of the fringe" outlier... views that are not shared by the majority of MIB fringe proponents... then (per WP:UNDUE) it is not worth noting in the article. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- For the most part, I agree with Blueboar above. The questions which come to mind here to me are basically about, as he indicated, WEIGHT concerns in this article. To the best of my knowledge, at this point, one of the few ways I can think of to maybe try to resolve that is to see what amount of attention it is given in reliable secondary sources, and generally the most reliable on subjects like these are those which are in some way "encyclopedic," because their content can in most really "encyclopedic" sources be among the best indicators of weight to give such subtopics. I think I have access to a few, and will try to get ahold of them over the next week, but it probably won't be until Thursday at the earliest that I will be able to report back with anything. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just looked at the source in question and I get the distinct impression that "www.lawofone" is an amateur enthusiast site and not an authoritative or notable resource that represents collective beliefs about the topic. A widely cited and objective academic source like this one would be preferable to help fill out the article, I imagine. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- For the most part, I agree with Blueboar above. The questions which come to mind here to me are basically about, as he indicated, WEIGHT concerns in this article. To the best of my knowledge, at this point, one of the few ways I can think of to maybe try to resolve that is to see what amount of attention it is given in reliable secondary sources, and generally the most reliable on subjects like these are those which are in some way "encyclopedic," because their content can in most really "encyclopedic" sources be among the best indicators of weight to give such subtopics. I think I have access to a few, and will try to get ahold of them over the next week, but it probably won't be until Thursday at the earliest that I will be able to report back with anything. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Blueboar, John Carter and LuckyLouie for your thoughts (and for your action on the article itself Louie). I find myself generally in agreement with all of you and you have each expanded on concerns I had myself. I suppose, from the outset, my concern was that there is a distinct lack of secondary sources that provide coverage of the subjects that the The Law of One covers. Probably enough to make the subject itself notable, but possibly not enough to justify inclusion of Law of One-related material in other articles. Even in the context of the Law Of One material, Men in Black seems to have only been mentioned (channelled) in passing. If it were a substantial part of that material it might be a different story. But surely we shouldn't be expected to provide the Law of One's take on every subject mentioned in passing during the channelling sessions? The material discusses the Pyramids of Giza, The Ten Commandments and the Belt of Orion extensively - surely we aren't expected to provide the Law Of One's "unique" (fringe) take on each of those subjects? Stalwart111 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Might want to fix the "Explanations" section, told from the perspective of John Keel, with a Military-CIA conspiracy listed as plausible. (I think this article is a holdover from the bad old days of WikiProject Paranormal when articles were set up to give equal validity to supernatural and mundane explanations.) LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Richard M. Dolan
Richard M. Dolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can anybody find some WP:FRINGE#Independent sources about this fellow?
jps (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Independent? Questionable, but I found a few books that either reference his book like this, this and this. Whether any of that is sufficient is a matter of debate. Each author is clearly a believer in the Dolan philosophy and the publishers aren't exactly the Cambridge University Press. Stalwart111 03:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The internet is for fringe...
KGRA-db (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Above Top Secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Both of these articles could use some clean-up, at the very least. Some sources that firmly establish their notability would be even better.
jps (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Fringe theorists on the Rupert Sheldrake
I am real sorry to have to raise this again but some parapsychologists and fringe proponents have turned up on the talkpage on the Rupert Sheldrake article. As we have discussed previously a self described psychic Craig Weiler (talk · contribs) on a blog has promoted a crazy conspiracy theory that an "atheist skeptic" group called GSM has highjacked the article to oppress Sheldrake. [3], unfortunately Sheldrake himself has fallen for this lie and has posted a huge rant on his blog about it which has attracted a lot of attention. This has then been spammed around the internet on various new age and paranormal forums as seen here [4] [5] which has attracted various paranormal believers.
I personally don't think Craig Weiler should be editing Wikipedia, for example on his post here he claims he is setting up some sort of online petition to damage Wikipedia [6] on that same page users from this board have been mentioned and various "psychic" editors are saying they are going to revert stuff, he has also been attacking Wikipedia editors here and asking other psychic believers to come over to Wikipedia and revert people on the Sheldrake article. [7].
The user Tumbleman (talk · contribs) (also a psychic believer and has close connections to Sheldrake) continues to troll the talk page of the Sheldrake article claiming that Sheldrake is a biologist and not a parapsychologist etc. He's still promoting the conspiracy theory that GSM have highjacked the article. Tumbleman also deleted some of my comments on his IP address, he then denied that it was him and says he may of been hacked by someone (I can't make sense of that). There's also another user Annalisa Ventola (talk · contribs) a parapsychologist who has done personal interviews with Sheldrake and has supported his theories all over the internet.
If you check the edit history of this user, it seems she got into trouble back in 2007 for promoting parapsychology and removing skeptical sources. There's also another user Iantresman (talk · contribs) who was topic-banned for defending Immanuel Velikovsky's pseudoscience and deleting skeptical references a few years ago. So what has happened is all these paranormal believers have teamed up are supporting each other and then claiming their POV has consensus. I am not sure what can be done about this. It may be best to ignore it, it's clear that one of these users is a definite troll looking for a reaction. I will stay away from the article talk-page for a while. Dan skeptic (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think a topic ban for Tumbleman (talk · contribs) would be beneficial to constructing the article as then we might be able to talk rationally on the talk page without getting into the same arguments about his bizarre idea that Sheldrake's work does not fall under criteria WP:FRINGE#1 and WP:FRINGE#2. He has failed to edit the article at all, and doesn't edit any other articles. However, if we do this I'm sure that we'll get more accusations of running a conspiracy and "censoring" the article.
- The consensus is that WP:FRINGE applies across the Wiki and this is backed up by the Arbcom. The fact that this is unpopular with a small group of highly motivated individuals is irrelevant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you, if any of those users are topic banned then they will just post on more blogs and forums about conspiracy theories and censorship and it will only make things worse and attract more attention. I apologize for some of my angry edits on the talkpage of the Sheldrake article. I am no longer editing that article, the whole thing has annoyed me, it's absolute madness how users are claiming Sheldrake is not a parapsychologist and that his theories are not fringe. I highly recommend that Sgerbic (talk · contribs) should help out on the article. Hopefully she will log in today and look at it. Dan skeptic (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I never spoken with Rupert Sheldrake nor have I ever publicly stated support for or against his theories. Please try to get your facts straight. Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 13:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Really? Which is why you have asked people in the past on your parapsychology blog to join you and your fellow parapsychologists "in our efforts to replicate" the psychic pet studies of Rupert Sheldrake. You even set up a website supporting Sheldrake's theories called opensourcescience [8]. You have also been advertising and asking people to attend Sheldrake's lectures on your blog [9]. In a personal interview in a section on TED talks you have supported Sheldrake. [10]. You have also stated "Fifty years from now, we can look forward to parapsychology developing into a multi-cultural science". Interesting prediction, I don't quite think it's going to happen though :) Dan skeptic (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that these topic areas are under discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. The correct venue to discuss the imposition of sanctions is at WP:AE, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I have started a related ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Conspiracy_theories_-_Rupert_Sheldrake, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Dan skeptic, you write, "I am real sorry to have to raise this again..." but your account is only 10 days old. When did you raise your concerns previously? Under what account name? Since this topic is under discretionary sanctions, it would be useful to know if you have participated in discussion of these subjects in the past. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- No I have not been on Wikipedia before, I have family and friends who have used Wikipedia and have said positive things about it but I have never been on here before on any account... when I said the above comment about raising the issue, I meant on this website as I have raised it already on the Sheldrake article and directly above in another section. As I wrote on my talk-page to another user (Tumbleman) I did sign up to Wikipedia after reading Craig Weiler's conspiracy theory on his blog found here [11], he mentioned a group called Guerilla skeptics and he said that they have been attacking Sheldrake's article. I then went to YouTube and watched a video of the owner of that group [12] and checked out the Sheldrake article and noticed no Guerilla skeptic's have not been editing it and that the conspiracy theory has no basis in fact. I decided to join Wikipedia to clear that up. I originally left a message on Barney's talk page about it. As written on the admin board, I have left the Sheldrake talk page and article and no longer want to be involved in it. Both Weiler and Tumbleman have trolled the page and nothing is getting through to them. I don't believe Tumbleman is a sockpuppet but as discussed on this page he did deliberately use his IP address to delete one of my comments which I'm not too bothered about but on the talk page of the Sheldrake article he then claimed someone may of hacked his IP address which is beyond ridiculous and has accused me of stalking him (I haven't!). If it was up to me I would topic ban both Tumbleman and Weiler and there would be no more problems but if that is done then it will feed their conspiracy theory of "censorship". Sorry I have no further input on this issue, I wrote my last message on the admin board. I'd rather put my time into editing other articles and stay away from the Sheldrake issue. Sorry if some of my comments above were not clear. Dan skeptic (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, if you say so, Dan skeptic. You just picked up Wikiways quite fast, from knowing how to cite references with external links to knowing about noticeboards like this one...I mean, you went into the ARBCOM archives to uncover Iantresman's topic ban from a few years ago. Usually, after their first 10 days, Editors are still learning how to respond to a comment on their Talk Page, they don't know about ARBCOM or explore the posting history of other Editors. I guess you're a quick learner. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Dan skeptic (1) It is inappropriate to bring up my bans here, per WP:WIAPA. If you have a problem with my behavior, leave a message on my talk page, or go to WP:DR. (2) The reasons you suggested for my topic bans are incorrect, and come across as discrediting per WP:CIVIL. If you have criticisms, you must provided diffs, otherwise they come across as accusations. (3) Congratulations on learning some of the nuances of Wikipedia in just 10 day. --Iantresman (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, if you say so, Dan skeptic. You just picked up Wikiways quite fast, from knowing how to cite references with external links to knowing about noticeboards like this one...I mean, you went into the ARBCOM archives to uncover Iantresman's topic ban from a few years ago. Usually, after their first 10 days, Editors are still learning how to respond to a comment on their Talk Page, they don't know about ARBCOM or explore the posting history of other Editors. I guess you're a quick learner. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Liz (talk · contribs), the article attracts fans of Sheldrake who come up with the same objections over and over again and refuse to listen to explanations of Wikipedia policies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, Barney the barney barney, I think there might be some socks involved here, but the debate is so involved I can't tell whose they are. Maybe someone else who knows the sides of this debate would have better luck sorting this out. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Having been involved, Liz (talk · contribs), I think there's (m)any socks involved, it's mostly that the article attracts certain type of editors who are fans of Sheldrake and therefore either don't understand WP:FRINGE or don't think that that should apply to the article. As fans, they have a natural tendency to massively overestimate the importance of accuracy of Sheldrake's work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- So, does that mean you don't think there is any? Or you think there are many? The thing that is really odd about this is if you look into the participants, into views they've espoused over time, I'm beginning to think there are socks on both sides of the debate, just keeping the discussion going. It's not trolling in a destructive way, just in a way that consumes a lot of time and energy from other Editors. It's kind of a game in conflict resolution. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is a really interesting point. Call me paranoic, but it might not be the first time that people have faked a controversy here for the purposes of somehow using the increased activity to increase attention to it, but, having said that, I don't know enough about the internet to say how such might be done, if it is even possible. There have been previous incidents involving mailing lists and urges to come to wikipedia on various noticeboards, and it certainly might be possible that one or more noticeboards or other sites are actively on site or through e-mail encouraging some appearance of controversy on this topic, although I can't see what good that might do in this case. If, as you say, there is reasonable evidence for multiple sockmasters involved in this discussion, some form of article protection might not be unreasonable, at least for a while. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's not too hard, John, to see the SPA accounts that just appeared and dove into the discussion on this Talk Page. If they seem to know a lot about how Wikipedia operates, they are likely socks. If they seem unfamiliar with Wikiways, they are probably inadvertent meat puppets who followed a link on a blog over to WP. I don't think the meat puppets are usually a problem, the whole scale of disputed and large walls of text on Talk Pages is long, divisive and would cause only the most persistent newbie to leave.
- The socks are a different issue because while they are fairly simple to identify, they need to be matched up with present or past (blocked) Editors and that means you have to look at nuances in how they post, when they post, words they use, stylistic similarities, etc. You can often tell because they take identical ideological positions but there are times when a sock takes the opposite POV either to misrepresent that side by being unreasonable or because they are trolling and they just want to keep the debate going and going and going. Unless one is skilled in sorting these things out, it can be difficult to distinguish between these kinds of socks or guess who they belong to. I know it's above my skill level. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- User:Liz, User:John Carter fwiw, as somebody involved, I don't believe that there are socks about on that page, only interested parties. I doubt that what I understand to be meatpuppets are having any serious input, if they exist. I suspect that oversight have deleted some of my posts discussing an editor, and having learned some more about wiki behaviour in this regard following that, have concluded that it is impossible for me to even attempt to explain what is going on. I am trying to follow advice found surrounding WP:SHUN but it isn't easy !! --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 03:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've been following the Sheldrake debacle for a few days and recently started weighing in. I'm far from a fringe believer and consider myself a serious skeptic, but that's irrelevant when it comes to editing a quality, NPOV Wikipedia page. The Sheldrake article, especially the lead, seems to have been written with the idea that it is the last, best hope for preventing the teaching of Sheldrake in schools. Tumbleman (talk · contribs) has brought this issue up, has not succeeded, brought it up again, and so on. That's not a banning offense, that's just persistence. He hasn't tried to vandalize the page, get users banned spuriously or otherwise behaved unethically. Unpopularity shouldn't get you banned from Wikipedia. I don't understand why this is even a discussion. The Cap'n (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I see that there are some very good people on the article now. There is no longer any danger of it coat-racking Sheldrake's views, and the skeptic side needs to stand back and remember BLP. WP:FRINGE does apply and it's good that this board was alerted, but there's not much more we can do. You might want to consider dispute resolution. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- @The Cap'n I concur. --Iantresman (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I see that there are some very good people on the article now. There is no longer any danger of it coat-racking Sheldrake's views, and the skeptic side needs to stand back and remember BLP. WP:FRINGE does apply and it's good that this board was alerted, but there's not much more we can do. You might want to consider dispute resolution. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've been following the Sheldrake debacle for a few days and recently started weighing in. I'm far from a fringe believer and consider myself a serious skeptic, but that's irrelevant when it comes to editing a quality, NPOV Wikipedia page. The Sheldrake article, especially the lead, seems to have been written with the idea that it is the last, best hope for preventing the teaching of Sheldrake in schools. Tumbleman (talk · contribs) has brought this issue up, has not succeeded, brought it up again, and so on. That's not a banning offense, that's just persistence. He hasn't tried to vandalize the page, get users banned spuriously or otherwise behaved unethically. Unpopularity shouldn't get you banned from Wikipedia. I don't understand why this is even a discussion. The Cap'n (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- User:Liz, User:John Carter fwiw, as somebody involved, I don't believe that there are socks about on that page, only interested parties. I doubt that what I understand to be meatpuppets are having any serious input, if they exist. I suspect that oversight have deleted some of my posts discussing an editor, and having learned some more about wiki behaviour in this regard following that, have concluded that it is impossible for me to even attempt to explain what is going on. I am trying to follow advice found surrounding WP:SHUN but it isn't easy !! --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 03:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's not too hard, John, to see the SPA accounts that just appeared and dove into the discussion on this Talk Page. If they seem to know a lot about how Wikipedia operates, they are likely socks. If they seem unfamiliar with Wikiways, they are probably inadvertent meat puppets who followed a link on a blog over to WP. I don't think the meat puppets are usually a problem, the whole scale of disputed and large walls of text on Talk Pages is long, divisive and would cause only the most persistent newbie to leave.
- That is a really interesting point. Call me paranoic, but it might not be the first time that people have faked a controversy here for the purposes of somehow using the increased activity to increase attention to it, but, having said that, I don't know enough about the internet to say how such might be done, if it is even possible. There have been previous incidents involving mailing lists and urges to come to wikipedia on various noticeboards, and it certainly might be possible that one or more noticeboards or other sites are actively on site or through e-mail encouraging some appearance of controversy on this topic, although I can't see what good that might do in this case. If, as you say, there is reasonable evidence for multiple sockmasters involved in this discussion, some form of article protection might not be unreasonable, at least for a while. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- So, does that mean you don't think there is any? Or you think there are many? The thing that is really odd about this is if you look into the participants, into views they've espoused over time, I'm beginning to think there are socks on both sides of the debate, just keeping the discussion going. It's not trolling in a destructive way, just in a way that consumes a lot of time and energy from other Editors. It's kind of a game in conflict resolution. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Having been involved, Liz (talk · contribs), I think there's (m)any socks involved, it's mostly that the article attracts certain type of editors who are fans of Sheldrake and therefore either don't understand WP:FRINGE or don't think that that should apply to the article. As fans, they have a natural tendency to massively overestimate the importance of accuracy of Sheldrake's work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Tumbleman here, I just want to clear up any speculation about myself and my motivations for working on the sheldrake page. An editor here on this thread claims that I am a *believer* and have close personal relationship with Sheldrake. I'm not sure where editors are getting these ideas, it kind of creeps me out that editors have gone through archive posts, somehow figure out who I am, and then do personal research on me to somehow make a point about why I should not be trying to make the page better. I personally am not interested in promoting sheldrakes theories - I am agnostic on his ideas. I am fascinated by the philosophical debate however his work raises and the controversy since TED, but that is because I love philosophy, not psychic pets. But more importantly than Sheldrake, I believe in establishing a rational consensus without bias - my work here is more motivated by helping Wikipedia than anything else. Also, I am not a sock puppet or a troll, I think the evidence in TALK of my participation clearly shows that. The Tumbleman (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Gavin Menzies
Take a look at Talk:Gavin Menzies - we now have his genre as 'history' with the source being the Daily Mail. It used to be Alternative history (which should never have been on his page) and Pseudohistory, which is backed by academic sources, some of which I've placed on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- We'll need more eyes on this article as he's published a new book on who discovered America. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent. Just in time for Christmas. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I weary of scientific illiterates slapping "quantum" onto something and claiming it's a new thing (see quantum fiction for a particular steaming heap of meaninglessness). This is funny when done by the boffins at Unseen University; but it's not at all amusing when it is pushed by a self-admitted practicioner as a form of alternative medicine. Sadly, we've got one of those (may have been editing previously as an IP) who feels we're blocking him from advocating his version of The Truth™. See the talk page of the article and of User:AlexanderDunlop, who claims to be a Harvard-trained scholar. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article seems clean and just a straightfoward description of the fringe concept currently. Not sure why you are digging on quantum fiction as crap though, lots of the books in that genre go into a good bit of detail on real quantum theory (although obviously taking it into the realms of science fiction) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such genre as "quantum fiction"; it is an obscure term made up by a particular self-published author who considered herself superior to mere science-fictionists, and who has pursued a relentless campaign for well over a decade to pretend otherwise by claiming as spiritual allies a mass of fiction which does not resemble her hackwork, but which mentions real quantum theory; and any works, a review of which puts the words "quantum" and "fiction" in the same sentence. (Full disclosure: I am a science fiction fan and book reviewer, and have been dealing with this particular publicity drive since the days when all the discussion took place on Usenet, and we would disemvowel her name to make it harder for her to jump in and promote herself.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there. I was cited as the primary source of the article. I thought it fair that I might actually have a share in the discussion. So, I posted an edit. But, it was immediately taken down. And, I was warned never to do that again. Funny, I thought wikipedia was meant to be an open forum. The second point is who decides what is "mainstream." That's a highly arbitrary and fickle thing anyway. We have leading-edge scholars and scientists who are advocating a Quantum approach to medicine, following upon scientific discoveries of Quantum physics. These are hardly "fringe" theories. These are leading-edge theories put forward by leading scholars and scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.163.224 (talk • contribs)
- There has not been an iota of evidence submitted to show anything of the sort. Particularly with regard to medical issues, we insist on reliable sources with solid reputations. This is not optional. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- ...And Wikipedia is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there. I was cited as the primary source of the article. I thought it fair that I might actually have a share in the discussion. So, I posted an edit. But, it was immediately taken down. And, I was warned never to do that again. Funny, I thought wikipedia was meant to be an open forum. The second point is who decides what is "mainstream." That's a highly arbitrary and fickle thing anyway. We have leading-edge scholars and scientists who are advocating a Quantum approach to medicine, following upon scientific discoveries of Quantum physics. These are hardly "fringe" theories. These are leading-edge theories put forward by leading scholars and scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.163.224 (talk • contribs)
My third point is to ask a question: orangemike, who are you? What are your credentials? On what basis to you claim your superior perspective? Please advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.163.224 (talk • contribs)
- Me? I'm just a guy with a mop and bucket, trying to keep our articles up to standards and clear out the junk and garbage that tends to accumulate. By training, I'm a historian specializing in U.S. 19th- and 20th-century history, especially labor history; but I'm not a scientific illiterate, and I do have a grasp of actual physics, including what the word "quantum" does and does not mean. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Orange Mike Apologies, I should have read the article more clearly. Agreed that the coiner appears to be off the deep end, but it does seem that the term has gained traction (although I would argue that the way the term is discussed in the reliable sources is much more narrowly defined than the coiner's term, and we could perhaps reduce their promenance in the article to more match the updated meaning). To the anon : Mike's authority comes from the wiki-wide consensus which developed the policies he is quite accurately and appropriately enforcing. We do not repeat pseudoscientific claims as fact. If those claims turn out to be "the truth (tm)" then ample evidence will be available from scholarly, scientific, or at least news sources, and we will not have to rely on the unsubstantiated claims of those hawking their snake oil. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- "On what basis to you claim your superior perspective?" Presumably on the basis that it's obvious nonsense designed to attract only the scientifically illiterate since it has no grounding in actual quantum mechanics and seems to come from a somewhat embarrassing misunderstanding of the terms molecular vibration and many others. If you wish to discuss it further I suggest my talk page since this noticeboard isn't a forum. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Content shunted off to Deepak Chopra where it belongs until reliable sources identify an actual industry independent of Chopra's prominent service to alternative health ideas. jps (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Syrian chemical attack denialists
The mainstream consensus (which, as always, could be wrong) is that the Syrian government launched the Ghouta chemical attack; for example, the Economist, Human Rights Watch, and every government except for Syria and its two allies (Iran and Russia) all believe the Syrian government was responsible. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is overrun by conspiracy theories that rebels have secretly obtained massive amounts of firepower and chemical weapons and then, I guess, snuck into a Syrian military base to launch a massive false-flag attack. Intelligence interceptions from Syria, and initial Syrian reluctance to allow inspectors in, are all explained away by fringe blogs containing dubious assertions that editors want to add "as fact".
As an example, the Responses section here [[13]] was wholly critical of the report, and hasn't gotten much better since.
As time permits, I'm doing what I can across several of the pages that I'm active in, but could use some advice. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would say its very much WP:UNDUE but not a fringe theory, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
A mess, probably being used to promote individuals and texts. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. as per comments in another discussion, I think it has a really good chance of being deleted or merged into other articles in a few months, if the sources to establish its individual notability aren't produced, and I kinda doubt they will be. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Salvestrol
Salvestrol is the basis of a dietary supplement marketed for its anti-cancer benefits. The article is being heavily edited by a new account; more eyes needed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is promoted by Patrick Holford. The article is claptrap and shouldn't be here in it's current form, even basic spelling errors are present. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Searching around there is a veritable tsunami of promotional material and alternative commentary out there, with (it seems) only a statement from Cancer Research UK and a couple of blogs from The Quackometer with which the neutrality line can be held. It's kind of depressing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Contains what appears to be an extraordinary medical claim of a patient with high IQ and low brain matter. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the topic would look it over. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I mentioned this on the Admin board but no admin has looked into it. Craig Weiler on this paranormal forum [14] has been encouraging and inviting his "psychic" friends to join Wikipedia and delete skeptical sources, from that link is a user who says he is going to delete any skeptical references on the Lorber Wikipedia article. It's no surprise that ECCarb (talk · contribs) has then turned up and has started editing that article and the Sheldrake one. Dan skeptic (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Paul Barlow doesn't let me categorise this as pseudoarchaeology when it clearly is. He says it is Muslim theology, but clearly just a fringe. Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article says nothing whatsoever about archaeology, pseudo or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)