Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
Additional notes:
|
||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Whitewashing in film
- 2 Gunnar Heinsohn
- 3 Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories
- 4 Myron Ebell
- 5 Cold Winters Theory
- 6 Related discussion at RSN
- 7 Isolation Techniques (Individual)
- 8 Frank Gaffney
- 9 User:Markshaw
- 10 Jovan Hutton Pulitzer
- 11 Linda and Terry Jamison
- 12 RS/N discussion of interest
- 13 OTRS again?
- 14 Questions regarding Deism
Whitewashing in film
Article uses American tabloid/clickbait websites as "reliable sources" to call Cleopatra a non-white (an anachronistic tag anyway). This is against general academic consensus that Cleopatra was from a heavily inbred Greek family, and also plays into the fringe Afrocentric theories of Egypt and the Jews, per the sources.
The sources to include Cleopatra are not academic, they are four American tabloids making clickbait lists.
First: Huffington Post using evidence cited from the Daily Mail, a notorious British tabloid http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1095043/Sorry-Liz-THIS-real-face-Cleopatra.html
Second: Complex calls Cleopatra a "woman of color", a phrase which didn't exist 100 years ago never mind 2,000 years ago. Probable echoing of Afrocentric meme http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/04/25-minority-characters-that-hollywood-whitewashed/cleopatra
Third: US News: "The British-American actress (she had dual citizenship) doesn't look even remotely Egyptian or North African. " Not an argument, Cleopatra was Greek. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/12/white-actors-portraying-people-of-color-in-hollywood
Fourth: Madame Noire. An ethnocentric website claiming that both the Egyptians and Hebrews were black, both of which are discredited fringe theories. http://madamenoire.com/496138/cast-non-blacks-in-black-roles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.9.247
- Not sure what is wrong... but this thread is interfering with the Mobile view of the page... the other discussions (below) are not showing up when this page is viewed in Mobile view. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Gunnar Heinsohn
IP, in the name of fixing a POV problem, has inserted claims that the criticisms of mainstream scholars have been refuted by the subject himself and other Velikovskians. See the IPs comments on the talk page. 'Refuted' of course means disproved, and that's nonsense. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"Nonsense"? No, the material was cited on the talk page, before Dougweller blanked it. Both Dougweller Bishoned have blanked material from the article, material from the discussion page and/or "citation needed" tags, referring to how they ar e"not needed", and repeatedly making disparaging remarks about Heinsohn. Clearly Dougweller and Bishonen are NOT going for a "neutral point of view", as they have blanked relevant material, and stated that the article "doesn't need" to be improved, while simultaneously blanking material placed on the discussion page that can be used to improve article, and give it more of a neutral point of view.
- No, it's nonsense, whoever you are, since you didn't sign your post. Read WP:POV. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Almost 800 words of copyright material even on a talk page isn't acceptable. I've cut it to about 240, which is. Neither User:Bishonen or I have said it didn't need improving, although I did say that the IP had slightly improved it. I've also removed some unsourced material which the IP fact tagged because I'm pretty convinced you can't say that most mainstream historians were critical of Heinsohn as virtually all of them have simply ignored him. Love the bit where the IP wrote that the article is "something one would expect from some sort of fascist dictatorship". Doug Weller talk 15:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, considering both you and Bishonen blank material, and push "pov", one would think so. Likewise, DoctorJoeE simply dismissing something as "No, it's nonsense", without anything more speaks volumes. How is "No, it's nonsense" NOT "pov"? And even if it WAS simply "nonsense", shouldn't Wikipedia STILL portray a neutral, balanced viewpoint where both sides are presented fairly, rather than multiple criticisms, blanket comments about "Heinsohn's problems" and "almost all professional historians", and constant blanking of anything to the contrary?
- Bizarre. I removed "but is generally being rejected by mainstream historians." and "These critiques have been ignored by Heinsohn.[citation needed] Because of the problems with his methodology[citation needed] almost all[citation needed] professional ancient historians, Egyptologists, Assyriologists, archaeologists, and specialists in scientific dating methods reject Heinsohn's claims." but the IP restored both claims, sourcing the first one for some odd reason to works by Heinsohn, which I'd also removed. Even more oddly, the IP's rationale was "reinstated citation needed tags. If they can't be verified, then these comments should be deleted." I'm not keen to revert again right now. It is possible that the 6 sources, mainly Heinsohn pdfs and not properly referenced (take a look at the mess) were meant to source Heinsohn and not the statement that they now source, but even so they're OTT. And "neutral, balanced viewpoint" probably means something different to the IP than it does here. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Rather bizarre, I agree. A biography article would deal with his life and activities. The article is a pretext to present Heinsssons publications, starting with the chronology (which is achronological, since he started relatively late in the Volokovsky / Illig realm). While I (see Ebell) fully agree with a quick walkthrough presenting the positions of a person, this is way too much at Heinsson's entry, not in line with his actual biography and scholarly career. Btw, Heinsson is an emeritus now, and his institute ceased to exist. That said, another case for WP:BLP and a complete rework of the article. Polentarion Talk 06:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Bizarre. I removed "but is generally being rejected by mainstream historians." and "These critiques have been ignored by Heinsohn.[citation needed] Because of the problems with his methodology[citation needed] almost all[citation needed] professional ancient historians, Egyptologists, Assyriologists, archaeologists, and specialists in scientific dating methods reject Heinsohn's claims." but the IP restored both claims, sourcing the first one for some odd reason to works by Heinsohn, which I'd also removed. Even more oddly, the IP's rationale was "reinstated citation needed tags. If they can't be verified, then these comments should be deleted." I'm not keen to revert again right now. It is possible that the 6 sources, mainly Heinsohn pdfs and not properly referenced (take a look at the mess) were meant to source Heinsohn and not the statement that they now source, but even so they're OTT. And "neutral, balanced viewpoint" probably means something different to the IP than it does here. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, considering both you and Bishonen blank material, and push "pov", one would think so. Likewise, DoctorJoeE simply dismissing something as "No, it's nonsense", without anything more speaks volumes. How is "No, it's nonsense" NOT "pov"? And even if it WAS simply "nonsense", shouldn't Wikipedia STILL portray a neutral, balanced viewpoint where both sides are presented fairly, rather than multiple criticisms, blanket comments about "Heinsohn's problems" and "almost all professional historians", and constant blanking of anything to the contrary?
- Almost 800 words of copyright material even on a talk page isn't acceptable. I've cut it to about 240, which is. Neither User:Bishonen or I have said it didn't need improving, although I did say that the IP had slightly improved it. I've also removed some unsourced material which the IP fact tagged because I'm pretty convinced you can't say that most mainstream historians were critical of Heinsohn as virtually all of them have simply ignored him. Love the bit where the IP wrote that the article is "something one would expect from some sort of fascist dictatorship". Doug Weller talk 15:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories
There is currently an open RfC at Talk:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories#Request for comment on previous topic regarding whether certain claims made in the article regarding fringe theories can be neutrally described as false. All comments are appreciated. Ergo Sum 03:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Why is that even an article? I don't see articles about other false rumors, like McCain's illegitimate black child, Bush paying for an underage girl's abortion, Trump running for president to increase Hillary's chances, witnesses against Bill Clinton dying mysteriously... Prevalence 09:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Myron Ebell
We need a lot more eyes on this article, both BLP-savvy and FRINGE-savvy. The subject is the President-elect's choice to handle transition at EPA, and is an activist opposing efforts to combat man-caused climate change. He denies that it's a real problem. Conversation on the talk page wasn't exemplary to start with, but it's degenerating further. I've just reverted one partisan's significant changes to the article and I expect that to heat things up further, although I explained my reasons, which I believe to be policy-compliant, in my edit summary and on the talk page. Your assistance would be most welcome. David in DC (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's covered by 3 sets of discretionary sanctions - American politics, climate change and BLP. It is now subject to 1RR and consensus required to reinstate material, and I've added an edit notice to the article that is visible when it is edited, and a notice at the top of the talk page. This of course applies to everyone. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. David in DC (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- No thanks for keeping that hit piece in the line. The words "moron" and "jackass" are still on the talkpage, in the meanwhile we got as well the likes of killer, crazy, lunatic fringe criminal and of cause various versions of denialist. Charles Manson has a less biased article. Technically, will say climate sensitivity range wise, even Ebell is most probably within the IPCC range. That said, fringe is - again - part of a political smear campaign. Polentarion Talk 18:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Just to be clear, the "moron" and "jackass" comments were over a decade old. They are now archived. I didn't see any similar comments that were made recently. Manul ~ talk 11:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Also, while on the specific point of climate sensitivity Ebell might be within the IPCC range[citation needed], numerous sources show he claims that global warming isn't a problem, is a Good Thing, or more fossil fuel consumption is the best answer. As a layman repeatedly quoted or interviewed as an "alternative view" to science, he is clearly fringe, a leading figure in a political smear campaign against scientists. . . dave souza, talk 12:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I doubt you have a genuine scientific base for your point, but use said press clippings for the assessement of fringe. The IPCC CS range itself well includes positions as Ebells, the very term of climate sensitivity was invented to do so and the actual range never changed for decades. (see e.g. doi: 10.1177/030631298028002004). A CS of about 1,5 is quite sufficient to be much more at ease. For the GWPF sceptical assessement, see Judith Curry on Lewis and Croke. I would therefore assume that range as well for Ebell. Polentarion Talk 00:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Polentarion, an April 1998 Social Studies of Science paper isn't a good basis for defining the current consensus, Judith Curry's blog isn't a reliable source for anything, and the Global Warming Policy Foundation is just another climate change denial think tank. Neither mention Ebell, so your synthesis doesn't even have that foundation. Multiple good sources cited in the article show that Ebell promotes climate change denial, by definition a fringe position. . dave souza, talk 17:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I doubt you have a genuine scientific base for your point, but use said press clippings for the assessement of fringe. The IPCC CS range itself well includes positions as Ebells, the very term of climate sensitivity was invented to do so and the actual range never changed for decades. (see e.g. doi: 10.1177/030631298028002004). A CS of about 1,5 is quite sufficient to be much more at ease. For the GWPF sceptical assessement, see Judith Curry on Lewis and Croke. I would therefore assume that range as well for Ebell. Polentarion Talk 00:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- My rather generic point is that any serious skeptic, (Ebell of cause included) is within the IPCC CS range and of cause as well within the famous 97 percent of science consensus. And the Social science paper of 1998 conclusions are still valid, the range of CS hasn't changed (the recent values point to the lower edge, Curry has a say there in the real world). That said, the consensus is useless: No climate scientist is able or qualified to adress the prevailing political questions and priority issues. Ebell has been working on with those in the states, and now in a leading position. I am not at all in line with all of his standpoints, but I have read them and I take them serious. If just dismiss them as unscientific or fringe and try to ignore them in WP, you fail to cover aspects of the real world. WP deserves better. Polentarion Talk 17:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "No climate scientist is able or qualified to adress [sic] the prevailing political questions and priority issues." What? Are you saying that politicians, who are addressing the concerns of their constituents (mostly the coal and oil companies), and couldn't care less about the environment, are more qualified on these issues than climate scientists? If you think that nothing has changed in climate science since 1998, you are as delusional as the climate denier politicians. WP should certainly include their position, as long as it explains why it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- A certain Mr. Lincoln once said that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth". Still valid, and has not been changed to neither "government of science, by scientists" nor "government of money, by money." Thank God. My point was about priority issues - no climate scientist has a clue or is to decide wether certain policies are more effective or which country should skip its fossil fuels first or wether other (regional) issues are more important than climate change. That is to be done by governments, an I, as a German, highly prefer elected ones. The 1998 paper is about the role of climate sensitivity both for the academic and the policy realm. The focal point is about the Climate sensitivity range never be changing for decades. It had not changed till then - and never did ever since, the main conclusions about the socio-political role of CS are in so far still valid. That is less about an Exxon cabal but about actual policy problems. The article is currently a sort of biased hit piece against Mr. Ebell. The way an actual political controversy is being reduced here to "its either us, the science, or the paid shills" reminds me of Bush junior of axis of evil fame. You won't be able to solve the actual controversy by downgrading an BLP article to a propaganda outlet. Wikipedia won't win on credibility either. Polentarion Talk 21:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cold Winters Theory
I'm fairly certain this is not a well respected theory of human evolution. Scaldwell17 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maunus (talk · contribs) redirected it to race and intelligence. The latter article does not even have word "cold". I agree that the theory is fringe. It may be just as well that it does not belong to the R&I article at all per WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE. Therefore IMO it is better to AfD it. What do you think? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- The theory is a creation of J. Philippe Rushton and it could be redirected to his biography as well. Rushton's work, and implicitly the "cold winter theory" of intelligence, is described both in his article and in the R&I article and either could be the target of redirection.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not well respected among the media or scientists in general, no. No hereditarian model is. However, the point of Wikipedia is not to cover things that are generally well respected, but things that are notable. Wikipedia covers quite a lot of fringe science already that is almost unanimously rejected by the scientific community. As an example think of the recent claims by Bem et al., which are covered in the precognition article. As this article's creator, I thought it suitable that Wikipedia should cover a well known theory in this area. Note, this area concerns differences in cognitive ability between human populations, not human evolution in general for which this theory is not very well known (as noted above). As an example of the notability, consider the discussion (p. 443ff) of this model in Earl Hunt's 2010 textbook, the latest comprehensive textbook in this field (532 pp.). Earl Hunt is quite critical of this model and instead prefers Diamond's model. He refers to them both as just so stories given their speculativeness. Hunt himself published a paper back in 2006 criticizing the results put forward by Templer and Arikawa.[1][2] As an alternative, I did consider putting this model under a person. The problem is that the model has been supported or positively discussed by a number of different authors over the years, making it difficult to place it under a single author. Rushton, Lynn, Arikawa, Templer, Hart, Jensen, Kanazawa and probably others. Thus, it seemed a bit difficult to place it under any of them. As Hunt remarks in his discussion, neither of these authors were the first to propose such a model, Herodotus was (p. 444). Should it be placed under him? That seems seriously misfitting. Thus, it seems to me that this model is notable enough to be included, and it is difficult to place under one particular person. I can think of two remaining options: 1) leave it where it is as a stand-alone article, and 2) add the content to the Race and Intelligence article. One could also consider the nations and intelligence article, but the model isn't really about nations, but about populations. Some nations happen to map fairly well to the populations that have been living there for some time, while in other cases (North America, Australia/New Zealand, South Africa), this isn't so. --Deleet (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Templer, Donald I.; Arikawa, Hiroko (March 2006). "Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective". Intelligence. 34 (2): 121–139. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.002.
- ^ Hunt, Earl; Sternberg, Robert J. (March 2006). "Sorry, wrong numbers: An analysis of a study of a correlation between skin color and IQ". Intelligence. 34 (2): 131–137. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.004.
Related discussion at RSN
Since the discussion involves what I would consider fringe sources, I believe it's appropriate to leave a note here:
Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Isolation Techniques (Individual)
- Isolation Techniques (Individual) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A relatively new article, the current and previous contents of the talk page make it sound like a great deal of original research without regard to WP:FRINGE. I'm not sure what to do with it. Maybe AfD? --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Definitely original research, but not WP:FRINGE. However the subject is valid. I am tagging it. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, there is a horrible Social isolation, which requires major cleanup and is actually a merge target. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at author's contribs I have found an even worse article: Face (sociological concept) - a valid subject, but terribly neglected article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I put it up for AFD yesterday: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Isolation_Techniques_(Individual). I today explored the idea of a merge to Social isolation but it is not credible. I have drafted new User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse which is actually an important topic, salvaging some material from Isolation Techniques (Individual) and adding new material. Isolation Techniques (Individual) now just needs binning.--Penbat (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Frank Gaffney
Is it appropriate to describe Frank Gaffney as a "conspiracy theorist" or should we maintain the current consensus of describing him as a "proponent of conspiracy theories"? A discussion is active here. LavaBaron (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Markshaw
Markshaw a prolific author whose subjects include various fringe conspiracy theories recently added some overtly self promotional and PROFRINGE material to Dorothy Kilgallen which I reverted. After which I took a look at their contrib history and discovered that every single edit made by this account was also self promotional and/or PROFRINGE. Many had already been removed and I took care of the other ones I found. Additionally I stubbed the author's Wikipedia article which was almost completely unsourced and promotional. As of right now I don't think any additional action is required but it might be helpful if other eyes occasionally took a glance at this one's editing. I left a caution on their talk page about using Wikipedia for self promotion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think you might want to take this to ANI. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- If there is any more trouble that will be my next stop. I am one of those people who believes that ANI should not be the first stop with a problem editor unless there is something that just requires immediate attention. But yeah, I won't put up with any more of this. He has been warned twice on his talk page, once here and once on an admin's talk page. That's enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am one of those people who believes that ANI should not be the first stop with a problem editor unless there is something that just requires immediate attention. I suppose I have to agree with that, given the de facto use of ANI as a "request for sanctions" forum. I wish it were more of an "incidents requiring admin assistance with" forum, which is how I've tried to use it a few times, to no avail. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I saw that latest attempt, and was a little disappointed with the response; I do think worth trying again, should circumstances arise, fwiw. -Roxy the dog. bark 01:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's a shame, to be sure. But to be fair, admins have talk pages that can be used for that. I wasn't locked out of getting an admin's assistance so much as locked out of using that particular venue for it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I saw that latest attempt, and was a little disappointed with the response; I do think worth trying again, should circumstances arise, fwiw. -Roxy the dog. bark 01:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am one of those people who believes that ANI should not be the first stop with a problem editor unless there is something that just requires immediate attention. I suppose I have to agree with that, given the de facto use of ANI as a "request for sanctions" forum. I wish it were more of an "incidents requiring admin assistance with" forum, which is how I've tried to use it a few times, to no avail. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- If there is any more trouble that will be my next stop. I am one of those people who believes that ANI should not be the first stop with a problem editor unless there is something that just requires immediate attention. But yeah, I won't put up with any more of this. He has been warned twice on his talk page, once here and once on an admin's talk page. That's enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Jovan Hutton Pulitzer
I'm not surprised to see this has arrived. It's extremely promotional, badly written, possibly needs stubbing and starting again. There's an archaeology Facebook page[1] that has discussed his work quite a bit as well as other sites, etg [[2][3] - Andy White's probably the expert on the sword. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Article assessed and tagged. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- and stubbed. I don't see any way to salvage what was there. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- and now deleted. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- and stubbed. I don't see any way to salvage what was there. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
and back at Oak Island
This has become something of a run-on and jumbled mess and needs to be made to look like it wasn't hacked at by several dozen random editors. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Jumbled mess" strikes me as being waaay too kind of a description of this. If given a few days, I can try to find a good travel guide or other reference work to Nova Scotia which covers the topic, and maybe use that as an indicator of what our content should have and how much weight to give it. Or, alternately, if anyone else wanted to do that first, they are of course free to do so. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, this is real WP:RANDY stuff. I removed it. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Linda and Terry Jamison
Linda and Terry Jamison ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bloated and really awful. Much WP:OR used to support the twins predictions. And tons of puffery sourced to Youtube videos and fringe websites. Needs chopping. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- The "Biography" section, which seems to me to be unduly late in the article, doesn't look too bad to me. Maybe move that up to the top, add a short section on some of their predictions, if there are sources for them, and short sections on books and/or media appearances thereafter? John Carter (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've tried to remove some of the worst crap, some of which reeks of cut-and-paste from press releases or TV listings. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I tried to clean it up, but so much of it was sourced to YouTube vids, their own book and other unreliabel sources, and so much of it was folksy "they moved to X without a penny to their name" guff that I concluded this is a WP:TNT job and sent it to WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- That CSD was sorta overblown, deleting the pic as well. Point is, they actually work as psychics, so do not claim the job doesnt exist. The WP:category exists and is applicable ;) Someone may design as well horoscopes or do Tarot readings, and make a living out of it, even if you assume foretelling is not possible. I like John Carter's approach. Polentarion Talk 05:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I want their Book and Filmography section back. They have appeared on all the listed programs. I don't believe it's all crap either! They make a living out of acting, appearances and their predictions. I will take suggestions on how to add back. Maybe add the a section 'Appearances in the media'. If I don't hear anything it's going back the way it was. Thisandthem (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- They may have appeared on all the listed programs but WP is not a resume, nor a vehicle for promotion and puffery. And we cannot accept TV guide listings and WP:SENSATIONal tabloid coverage as citations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- In general, to include material about media appearances, some sort of source indpendent of the production itself and the individuals who appear in it discussing those appearances is generally wanted for their inclusion. And if the apparent threat made by @Thisandthem: is acted upon, and the removed material is restored without any consensus from others as per WP:CONSENSUS, that restoration would probably be counted as a violation of WP:TE or WP:DE and potentially make the individual restoring that material subject to sanctions. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- They may have appeared on all the listed programs but WP is not a resume, nor a vehicle for promotion and puffery. And we cannot accept TV guide listings and WP:SENSATIONal tabloid coverage as citations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I want their Book and Filmography section back. They have appeared on all the listed programs. I don't believe it's all crap either! They make a living out of acting, appearances and their predictions. I will take suggestions on how to add back. Maybe add the a section 'Appearances in the media'. If I don't hear anything it's going back the way it was. Thisandthem (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
RS/N discussion of interest
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#globalsecurity.org
Please do not confuse the site with globalresearch.ca That said, I still contend that the website has problems that people who monitor this board might be able to comment upon.
jps (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note that this source is routinely used by the New York Times and other purveyors of "conspiracy theories". And note that non-neutral notifications may be violations of WP:CANVASS. Collect (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
OTRS again?
at Electromagnetic hypersensitivity Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, Jbhunley is re-inserting WP:PROFRINGE content and invoking[4] an OTRS ticket as a basis for it. May need eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- All I said is that, based on discussions with the editor via OTRS, that I believe their post on the talk page is a good faith attempt to discuss material. It was initially removed as "obvious sock puppet" without any link to a master or SPI.
The editors there are free to engage with this editor or not. Open an SPI or not. My opinion begins and ends with the fact that I believe they made a good faith edit to the talk page. JbhTalk 18:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- The concern is the invocation of OTRS. How is that meant to bear usefully on the discussion given then non-OTRS folk have no access to it? Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- The "invocation of OTRS" as you put it is simply a link to the "why" I think it was a good faith edit and not a sock as mentioned in the removal of the talk page section. I am not allowed to say anything about my discussions with people at OTRS unless they give me permission.
I do not see why this is even a question for FTN - there were no edits to the article. I explained to the editor that did the initial removal,Steelpillow why I rv'd [5] and, by looking at the ticket and OTRS agent can review the ticket and judge if my opinion and action was reasonable or not. If you do not want to discuss the material with the editor then ignore it and let it archive off of the page. JbhTalk 18:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- The invocation of OTRS equates to saying "I have a secret reason why this is okay" - which is distinctly unhelpful and smells of trying to pull rank. With the history of OTRS volunteer over-reach we have seen here, this is troubling. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yes. That is precicely what it is. I had confidential information, provided via email to OTRS, that gave me reasonable cause to believe that it was a good faith talk page edit. That is how the system works. I made no representation about the content nor anything about the editor beyond my belief that there were not a sock of an unnamed and unidentified master. You are more than welcome to ask someone with access to the OTRS queue to review 2016111510018082 or to go over to meta, ask for OTRS access, sign the confidentiality agreement and read it yourself. JbhTalk 19:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to think that we should let things go on talkpages. If the concern is that someone is going to mistake the comment for consensus, just put in a note indicating that the discussion has been had and the conclusions that came from that discussion aren't changed by that comment. jps (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- That said, the loooong comment was pretty disruptive and arguably a violation of something like WP:FAKEARTICLE. I collapsed it with a note. jps (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- The invocation of OTRS equates to saying "I have a secret reason why this is okay" - which is distinctly unhelpful and smells of trying to pull rank. With the history of OTRS volunteer over-reach we have seen here, this is troubling. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- The "invocation of OTRS" as you put it is simply a link to the "why" I think it was a good faith edit and not a sock as mentioned in the removal of the talk page section. I am not allowed to say anything about my discussions with people at OTRS unless they give me permission.
- The concern is the invocation of OTRS. How is that meant to bear usefully on the discussion given then non-OTRS folk have no access to it? Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Forgive me for not knowing what OTRS means. After a long period of quiescence, a fringe editor pops up [6], they are rejected and two brand new SPIs suddenly take up the challenge [7][8]. So we have apparent sockpuppetry by a fringe editor. Forgive me for describing this as the bleedin' obvious, but can we deal with the actual editing issue here? Alexbrn (talk · contribs) has it right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- OTRS is, essentially, Wikipedia's confidential public facing email based help system (it does other stuff too). People who handle OTRS tickets are Wikipedia editors and volunteers. Even when people give us permission to acknowledge on-wiki that they have opened a ticket we are not permitted to discuss anything further about that ticket without their express permission. We provide the ticket number so other OTRS volunteers, who also have signed the confidentiality agreement, can review the matter if needed ex. an admin with OTRS access at SPI. JbhTalk 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- >speechless< Have a nice day. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- OTRS is, essentially, Wikipedia's confidential public facing email based help system (it does other stuff too). People who handle OTRS tickets are Wikipedia editors and volunteers. Even when people give us permission to acknowledge on-wiki that they have opened a ticket we are not permitted to discuss anything further about that ticket without their express permission. We provide the ticket number so other OTRS volunteers, who also have signed the confidentiality agreement, can review the matter if needed ex. an admin with OTRS access at SPI. JbhTalk 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Questions regarding Deism
Anyone interested is more than welcome to take part in the discussion at Talk:Deism#Contemporary deism revisited regarding the amount of weight given to contemporary deism in our main deism article. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)