Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 56

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58→Archive 60

Miracle of the Sun

This articles puts forward the fringe theory that a miraculous event happened, and underrepresents the scientific consensus that there are non-paranormal explanation to this event.

Attempts to change this have been met with disruptive edits and edit warring from several users. The article needs to be changed significantly to belong in an encyclopedia.

The parent article Our Lady of Fátima as the same issues. KarlPoppery (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Update : The skeptical lead has been restored and the article has been semi-protected, which should prevent some of the problematic edits. It still needs a lot of attention from this board, if you can improve it please do so. KarlPoppery (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Two quick points. First, there should certainly be a properly sourced and neutral section that presents a critical examination of the claimed event. Whether or not that currently exists is a fair topic for discussion. Secondly, I would take a deep breath before labeling this as a fringe theory. I think it doubtful that there would be a consensus in favor of that. While there have been a number of attempts over the years to label various religious beliefs and or practices as fringe, the community has generally declined to endorse them. So tread cautiously. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's not precisely true. Whenever religious beliefs make testable predictions, those claims for what reality is tend to be WP:FRINGE. Thus, creation science, faith healing, etc. We can, for example, know for certain that the Sun did not move in actual fact during the event in spite of the fact that many believers are convinced that this is the case. jps (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I read and did a quick edit run through the page a few minutes ago, popped in an 'alleged' in an External links descriptor, and although the lede needs more description of what is actually alleged to have occurred this seems like a balanced page. Full disclosure, I created a template for the incidents quite a while ago, and named it something like '1917 Fatima events' which I thought was a neutral name. The template has since been merged and changed into a more religious one, and titled 'Our Lady of Fatima' (the common name descriptor). I've done some editing on it off and on to keep check of bias, but would welcome other eyes on it. As for calling this a fringe theory, probably not, due to the amount of witnesses and journalistic coverage both at the event and afterwards. Whatever happened in the fields that day, a large amount of people agreed that something did, so in the population present during the predicted event their sensory input sensed something unusual, and in many cases identical, so calling it 'fringe' itself seemingly wouldn't be encyclopedic. Randy Kryn 22:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I agree that this does not fall into the "fringe" category. It is not pseudoscience, questionable science, or a conspiracy theory. I quite understand why religion skeptics, among others, might consider it so; but disrespecting people's faith, particularly their belief in allegedly miraculous events, is a slippery slope. I also agree that the article needs to be watched - but not from a "fringe" perspective. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
          • I think Wikipedia tends to err too much on the side of caution in these matters. Those who claim miracles occur, much the same as those who believe that ghosts are real, argue something about the testable world. Once the religious believer crosses the divide between the two non-overlapping magisteria, WP:FRINGE is the inevitable result according to Wikipedia's definitions. Of course, there are other ways to interpret what precisely is meant by belief in the miraculous, but we're talking about those literalists who think, for example, that things like bilocation is physically possible. jps (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Points taken. I still think that the specific belief that something supernatural happened in 1917 can be described as "fringe". I certainly don't want to disrespect anyone. My only concern is that the article doesn't claim or imply that this event is impossible to explain by natural mean, when that's not the case.
Thanks to those who've said they'd keep an eye on the article. KarlPoppery (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, it's not fringe, per se. But proponent rebuttals should be removed from the Criticism section, such as: "...However De Marchi states that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely". It may be a religious belief, but when a religious scholar cites "lack of any known scientific causative factor" as justification for a miracle then WP:FRINGE is invoked and scientific mainstream views can be given primary weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe remove the sentence portion containing 'scientific causative', but his other observations seem like good descriptors of the event and could even be used in the lede (which lacks an adequate description of what the page is about). Randy Kryn 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I did a cleanup of the Critical Eval section, removed or relocated all the pro-supernatural rebuttals. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be quite erroreous to state there is a "scientific consensus" on the matter. To my knowledge, no serious inquiry has ever been performed, aside from maybe idle speculation from meteorologists or astronomers, and more recently, television producers. While individual theories presented by tv producers are likely nonsense, belief in Fatima is mainstream, and no more "fringe" than religion itself. –Zfish118⋉talk 10:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
That, I have to strongly disagree with. Belief in Fátima is not mainstream. It's a fact that the sun didn't become a spiral and started dancing in the sky in 1917. Nothing unusual about the sun was reported that day by the observatories around the world. To make a claim that breaks all laws of physics, like that the sun started doing zigzags in the sky, you'd need solid evidences. Anecdotal evidence is not enough. The contradictory accounts of eyewitnesses who were staring at the sun expecting to see a miracle is not enough. Sources already in the article show that the event was thoroughly investigated. Author Kevin McClure, who tried to compile these accounts, said he had "never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts in any of the research I have done in the past 10 years."
What the article can explain is that some people believe that a miracle happen. This should be done in a respectful way. It also has to report that no such miracle did occur as far as we can tell, looking at the event from the lens of the scientific method. KarlPoppery (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually a 'miracle' did occur. As a 'miracle' is a specific religious label for an event which is confirmed by the religion. If the event did or did not happen according to secular sources, is not relevant to if it is a confirmed miracle or not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
It's only relevant if the article makes claims about the physical world (which it did in previous versions, but it's getting better). If the article claims that according to scientists the event was impossible, it's misusing science and forces us to examine the event from a scientific perspective. KarlPoppery (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Miracle of the Sun now seems fairly balanced and clear. Our Lady of Fátima may still need some cleanup. KarlPoppery (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I added the material to the all important lede to provide a summary of the non-religious POV already presented in the article. Have had to fight to keep it there. (Rp2006) 107.77.216.152 (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to see, recent additions to the lead put undue weight on pseudoscientific explanations, bringing the article into WP:FRINGE territory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, I'm working on something else... I guess I'll clean it up again in a few days if it's not done. KarlPoppery (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This is definitely within WP:FRINGE territory now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Now, a persistent campaign by a Christian activist blogger editor who argues it's "censorship" for the article not to give the beliefs of "Catholics who are scientists" equal weight with the scientific mainstream. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Watergate scandal

Watergate scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Talk:Watergate scandal/Archive 1#Conspiracy theory content. An observant IP noted that recent changes are cited to Ashton Gray's book that states that the Watergate burglars were attempting to distract from the kidnapping of L. Ron Hubbard as well as Jim Hougan's book which has been described by The New York Times as "Watergate revisionism". -Location (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the editors who visited over there. Pretty sure that was done by Ashton Gray himself. -Location (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

POLYOXFEN

Just gonna leave this here. Seems...odd on it's face, but not sure what to do with it. TimothyJosephWood 14:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON at least. In any case, I think a redirect to the plant from which it is apparently based is appropriate. [1]. jps (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Surgeon's photograph

On the Loch Ness monster article is a couple of extreme fringe views about the Surgeon's photograph. One reads as follows "The hoax story is disputed by Henry Bauer, who claims that the debunking is evidence of bias and asks why the perpetrators did not reveal their plot earlier to embarrass the newspaper.[41] According to Alastair Boyd, a researcher who uncovered the hoax, the Loch Ness Monster is real; the surgeon's photo hoax does not mean that other photos, eyewitness reports, and footage of the creature are also, and he claims to have seen it."

I really do not think Henry H. Bauer should be cited on the article. He is unreliable. Below Bauer, Tim Dinsdale is quoted as disputing the hoax photograph. Problem is, Dinsdale was writing a long time ago. It is pretty much accepted now by almost everyone that the surgeon photograph is a fake. I think these fringe viewpoints should be removed? Anyone else agree? I have a big foot (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Bauer's and Dinsdale's statements and views can be used to the extent that they are mentioned in reliable secondary sources, however, they should not be as primary sources. See WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRIND. -Location (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree, they can be given as long as it is made clear that they are personal views.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I would remove the last sentence re: Alastair Boyd, which is inadequately sourced (and even if properly sourced would likely fail RS), and also reeks of somebody's POV masquerading as sourced content. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I am in the conflicted position of having had Hank Bauer attack me personally online for my actions here on Wikipedia. Suffice to say that I don't think we should be referring to Bauer's opinions in any article other than his own biography and possibly the one on AIDS denialism. Bauer is in the unique company of highly esteemed academics who seem to be hoodwinked by every single maverick proposal ever made. At some point, quoting such people becomes something like the game that news-stations play of getting the "contrary opinion" when there really are no contrary opinions to be had. Playing Devil's Advocate is fine, but it does not lend itself to accurate encyclopedia-ing. jps (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
In a field that is over-saturated with pet theories and alternative realities, we have no obligation to mention every theorist who published their own analysis. Unless an independent party thinks these objections merit mention, including them suggests WP:FALSEBALANCE. Agricolae (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Muscle response testing

This article has just been created. It claims to not be about Applied Kinesiology, but what I see described really looks like Applied Kinesiology, unless I'm missing something... It claims that the technique has been shown efficient to identify truths from lies. That's a pretty blunt statement to make. It's probably based on this study done on 48 people. I don't think the study is enough to claim with confidence that a new lie detector has been found. Please keep an eye on the article. KarlPoppery (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It is definitely Applied Kinesiology, we should propose a merger before too much work gets put into this. --Krelnik (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I have to avoid "outing", but it seems like there's also conflict of interest issues.KarlPoppery (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Page Move Request on the page Murder of Seth Rich

Move request:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Requested_move_19_May_2017

I think there are some Fridge Theory issues involved in the requested move and I would encourage you to visit the page and take part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Colonel Mustard did it in the kitchen with the Frigidaire. -Location (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Clairvoyance (book)

Newly landed, and at first glance has some issues, like asserting in Wikipedia's voice that astral sight happens, and discussing "possible applications". Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Those things can be a nightmare. You have to dig pretty deep to find sources that discuss those topics without giving credence to the crazy ideas of their subject. The article on aura (paranormal) that I just rewrote can be a starting point to find sources on Leadbeater, the author of the book. KarlPoppery (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the simplest approach would be to challenge the author of the article on whether or not it as an original synthesis. If no serious scholarly work has been done on a specific topic, we can't summarize it on Wikipedia without breaking WP:SYNTH. I doubt that there's enough good sources to make a long article about this topic, it seems to be mostly original research. KarlPoppery (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Amorphophallus paeoniifolius

In the article, this plant is described as quite a panacea : "The corm is prescribed for bronchitis, asthma, abdominal pain, emesis, dysentery, enlargement of spleen, piles, elephantiasis, diseases due to vitiated blood, and rheumatic swellings." The main source for these claims is behind a paywall. A quick search on Pubmed does give a few results. Does anyone here feel competent to evaluate the claims in this article? KarlPoppery (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Chinese herbal research? Automatically unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Going to go with Alex on this one. Too many red flags. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, the name means "deformed-penis singing-plant" which is awesome. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The host, oriprobe.com, describe the 'journal' as "Publication to promote and develop the characteristics of Chinese pharmaceutical industry ..." - this appears to be an auto-translation of its self-description. Agricolae (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
As a general rule, the more things any treatment is supposed to "cure", the less likely it is to be effective for anything, other than enriching the manufacturer. Another red flag is the "potentiator" descriptor; when something actually works, we usually just call it "medicine". Nevertheless, some ayurvedic practices have some science behind them. I'll have a look at the medical literature as time and spouse permit. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I've done what I can, with my limited medical knowledge. KarlPoppery (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Voynich manuscript

User:ApLundell raised a question about this at RSN which I think is more relevant here. A source that doesn't seem to be used in our article is the 2016 publication of a facsimile by Yale including some scholarly essays. This New Yorker article gives a glimpse into what some of these say. An Amazon.Com review says the book has "six chapters dedicated to the history of the manuscript and the attempts that have been made to decipher it. While these chapters contain little new information, they are well researched, and cover what can be known about the manuscript without straying into the realm of unprovable hypothesis." So definitely, these would be excellent sources and perhaps give us guidance as to what should be included in our article. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

J. D. Tippit

J. D. Tippit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

J. D. Tippit#Conspiracy theories contains a number of citations to the primary sources of JFK conspiracy theories (i.e. Jim Marrs, James W. Douglass, Kenn Thomas, and Sterling Haywood). Per various policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:REDFLAG), I thought these types of theories were only to be reported on to the extent they are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. Thoughts? Thanks! -Location (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I made a change per this edit. -Location (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

More eyes on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories would be greatly appreciated - there has been a spate of fringe promotion recently from at least two users.

One user, Chippy55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has introduced unsourced fringe-promotional text.

A second user - Gosale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - did a mass PROFRINGE edit throughout the whole article, then another edit to downplay the antisemitic nature of various conspiracy claims advanced by Iranian media. Gosale also did the same thing in 2015 (example), so I'm concerned about the pattern.

More eyeballs would be greatly appreciated. Neutralitytalk 22:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


It is slander because the information added to this article is emotionally motivated. The goal of the editor is to provide a label to TV station. the TV station already have a an article and in that article all labels can be provided.

In the article "Sandy Hook..." the TV station publishes an article that is produced by someone else, why do the editor feel the need to label the TV station as anti semitic in this article. Surly the editor would not accept that every news source that publishes other people articles to be labelled in every wiki article that news agency is mentioned.

This is clearly a effort to include the foul label "anti-Semitic" in a effort to slander that organ.

I suggest we respect the articles main function and provide facts and allow the labelling of people and organizations for other articles.

Have in mind that there are many sources out there, video and audio sources that shows that not only are, press TV ant the Iranian government members including the supreme leader, not anti Semitics but in reality they hailing the Jewish people and the Jewish faith on MANY points in time. BUT this is not the place to argue the fact that a tv station is worthy of a label.

I would love to read your thinking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosale (talk • contribs)

It would seem to me that the fact they are anti-Semitic is relevant to the fact that blamed ""Israeli death squads" for the shooting.", it's called context.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
While even anti-Israel propaganda does not necessarily equate to anti-semitic or anti-Jewish, in this case, the Press TV article does appear to have been an anti-semitic rant, and that label is supported by the cited source in The Atlantic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
"Have in mind that there are many sources out there, video and audio sources that shows that not only are, press TV ant the Iranian government members including the supreme leader, not anti Semitics but in reality they hailing the Jewish people and the Jewish faith on MANY points in time." I'm not racist, I have black friends!
Iran is anti-Semitic. Like it or not. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
That's far too much of a generalization. Iran is a signatory of the International Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Officially, Iran is anti-Israel, rather than anti-semitic, alough their propaganda and political hardliners do exploit racial animus. Interestingly, a recent scientific poll conducted by the Antidefamation League [2] found Iranians on average the least antisemitic people in the middle east, excluding Israel. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Please note that "least antisemitic" means 56% of responding Iranians, according to that article -- which also notes that Iranian state institutions use anti-Jewish propaganda, and the state-run TV networks and media outlets (and its last president) have a record of denying the Holocaust, blaming "influential Jews" for many of the world's problems, and using crude anti-Jewish imagery. So being the "least antisemitic" Middle East country is sort of like being the "smartest Kardashian" - not a particularly high standard. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
True enough. But dismissing "Iran" as "antisemitic" without qualification is, at best, an oversimplification. We do have a source that the particular article in question is antisemitic. But let's not paint all things Iranian with the same brush. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The word "antisemitic" is used not as a potentially superfluous adjective but as part of a link to antisemitic conspiracy theory (which links to antisemitic canard). I think that link is useful. Further, the article new antisemitism presents the view that modern antisemitism is manifested against the state of Israel rather than the Jewish people. Not all opposition to Israel is antisemitic, but accusing the country of sending death squads to murder American children is. However, the subject matter of the section is not about the state of Iran but about views presented on Iranian state television. For this reason I support the word "antisemitic" but I think the word "promoted" should be changed to "presented." Roches (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

KIC 8462852

The aliens are at it again. Apparently, so it is alleged, they've set up their Dyson shell to act like a beacon, possibly including mirrored surfaces. But more discipline needs to applied to the sourcing. There are some there that are working as a direct link from blogs, Twitter, and various expert email discussion lists straight into the article. Used to be (last time this was in the news) we'd wait for peer review instead of collecting primary sources. Geogene (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Remote viewing

Remote viewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Related to the above discussion on Watergate scandal, I noticed Ashton Gray has a couple of citations in Remote viewing. My suggestion is to revert the recent changes, however, I'm developing a strong bias against this source so I think someone else should check on it, too. Thanks! -Location (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Gray's book is hopelessly fringe. The publisher admits "Chalet Books takes on subjects that the giant mainstream publishers are too “politically correct” to touch". Shouldn't be used as a source for factual data in Wikipedia's voice. I removed it from Remote viewing. Also, editors should have a look at the article lead, it appears to be openly touting something called "Associative Remote Viewing" cited to parapsychology sources and including a handy sales link to a product. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: just noticed a Croatian IP had added the material promoting "Associative Remote Viewing" and Croatia-based RV product in the lead, so I have removed it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The Ashton Gray nonsense is back along with lots of soapboxing on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Now they are edit warring [3] to glorify "Ingo Swann" and promote that remote viewing really works and the government secretly used it for over 20 years. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to seek some administrative assistance? This is well beyond a simple content dispute, with one editor aggressively bullying and POV pushing, and clearly not interested in any opinions other than her own. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Rapa Nui people

Rapa Nui people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Inappropriate original research and WP:FRINGE material was removed from History of Easter Island . [4] However, similar text is included in the article on the people. I think what is happening here is that the fringe theory that there was contact between South America and Easter Island is getting more play on Wikipedia than in the WP:MAINSTREAM literature and while I see that obscure journals have published extremely speculative claims about all this, it is absolutely the case that there is no evidence that Rapa Nui culture is at all connected to South American indigenous culture (Rapa Nui traditional culture is 100% Polynesian according to all mainstream accounts I have been able to find). Can we get some help with this issue?

jps (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/epic-pre-columbian-voyage-suggested-genesSlatersteven (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"careful analysis of the Native American chromosome tract length indicated that the Native American admixture event probably happened between AD 1780 and AD 1425, well before the arrival of the first Europeans (Moreno-Mayar et al., 2014). These findings are the first genomic evidence for contacts between the Americas and Faster Island in prehistory, and represent a huge breakthrough in our understanding of the origins of the Rapanui. The genetic make-up of living Rapanui indicates that the first people to settle the island were Polynesians, and after settlement there was contact with the American mainland. We should remember, however, that comparison data arc still relatively limited, particularly in the case of the putative Polynesian source populations (Wollstein et al., 2010), and a precise time ami place of origin of the various ancestral genetic components in present-day Rapanui will have to await large-scale analyses of appropriate reference data. Regarding the genetic affinities of the prehistoric Rapanui, at the time of writing (November 2014), the only available data are still those of Hagelberg el al. (1994). which demonstrate that the Rapanui bad the same type of maternal lineages as other Polynesians." Skeletal Biology of the Ancient Rapanui (Easter Islanders) [5] But none of this shows that the culture is anything other than Polynesian, you need to show cultural influences to do that. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally bother with typos, but it is critical here - "probably happened between AD 1280 and AD 1425". Agricolae (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I have rewritten this, using references from Current Biology, Science, and PNAS - I don't think the idea of contact is fringe any longer, though exactly when (there is a conflict between radiocarbon dating of Polynesian crops and revised dating of arrival at Easter) and where (was it on Easter, or were the arriving Rapa Nui already carrying South American DNA and crops) is still an open question. Agricolae (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
And now my edit has been reverted without explanation other than 'there is already a discussion of this at FT/N', which is no explanation at all. Perhaps the reverting IP can explain here what their objections are to material sourced to decidedly non-fringe, mainstream scientific publications. Further, I don't see why the 2007 genetic study by Erik Thorsby should be acceptable, but the 2014 study of which Thorsby was a coauthor is unacceptable. Agricolae (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that the pre-Columbian contact hypothesis is still highly controversial at least and WP:FRINGE. The claims are based on a small (<10 %) match of the Rapa Nui with South American indigenous genomes from modern day. These are estimated to be consistent with genome crossing dates estimated above. However, this estimation is done on the basis of the assumption that the telomere and other DNA clocks which work on larger populations can be extrapolated to the bottleneck population of the Rapa Nui who are known to have had rather severe interactions with Peru and Chile in the late nineteenth century. An obvious thing for the authors to do would be to check what their analysis would argue for a European DNA admixture since no one is pretending that this part of the Rapa Nui genome is indicative of anything else other than post-eighteenth century interactions. This, then, is precisely the problem -- especially because the later contacts were so devastatingly close to nearly a genocide of the Rapa Nui people.
The only other pieces of evidence we have are the sweet potatoes and chickens. The chickens evidence has not been interrogated carefully, as far as I can tell and there are further questions as to whether the sweet potato claims are evidence for direct contact or other explanations (misdating or even ocean current transfer).
jps (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
In short, I would say identifying the DNA evidence for genetic population makeup of the modern Rapa Nui people is uncontroversial. Arguing that this says something substantive about pre-fifteenth century contact is something best left couched as WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The sweet potato data was published by PNAS, then accepted as noteworthy and relevant to the Rapa Nui contact question by a paper in Current Biology and a commentary in Science. You may want to argue that it is not yet fully accepted, but that doesn't turn it into FRINGE - I was very careful in mirroring the sources in presenting this as 'possible' support. The chicken evidence is problematic, but again, considered worth mentioning by both Moreno-Mayar and Lawler, and I specifically indicated the dating issues that call this relevance into question. It is certainly is possible to come up with alternative explanations, and these can be incorportated if you have a reliable source for them, particularly one that postdates the genetic analysis. As to dating, you seem to be more critical than either the Science commentary or the Skeletal Biology work quoted above, which are accepting of Moreno-Mayar's dating. The dating had nothing to do with telomeres or other traditional molecular clocks, nor is it based on population size assumptions: it is based on the size of blocks of contiguous admix sequence, and this depends almost exclusively on the number of generations, not population size or bottlenecking, and has been used to model the decidedly-mainstream Neanderthal/human interbreeding. And a 10% admixture is not a small signal, as admixtures go - the Neanderthal admixture is only 4-6%, and the (also mainstream) Denisovan signal in Polynesians is smaller than that. So what do you have that is actually based on sources, that would cause us to say that, yes, it is accepted by Current Biology, in PNAS, in Science, reported by Reuters [6], Australian Broadcastng Company [7], The Independent [8], etc., but we shouldn't include it anyhow because it is fringe? You want to argue UNDUE, fine, you want to argue a variant of TOOSOON, OK, but FRINGE just doesn't fit the situation at all. Poor Thorsby - when he presented HLA-based genetic data in the relatively obscure Tissue Antigens and got a wide date range, he was a legitimate scientist, but when he then went and used standard genomic aproaches to narrow that range and published it in the much less obscure Current Biology, he became purveyor of fringe. Agricolae (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the dating was done inconsistent with normal methods or that the markers are incorrectly identified. Include the information, by all means. I am saying that the contact implications are met with skepticism for good reason. The issues, broadly are that dates for the admixture may not be relevant to any contact event at that time because it isn't at all clear to what event the particular date refers owing to small number statistics that the observed split is properly rigorous (in spite of your claims, population size is definitely relevant as one-off events in bottlenecks can cause ambiguity -- e.g. an admixture can look older or younger than it is because of particular ancestral components or particular statistical flukes). Broadly, I'd consider the following paragraph to be a decent explanation of the controversy:

Whether Polynesians reached the Americas and admixed with Native Americans during their eastward expansion that ended about 1 kyr ago remains controversial. A genetic study of ancient chicken remains from South America supports this scenario but has also been questioned. Genome sequencing of the remains of humans from Brazil that date to around AD1650, and therefore pre-date the recorded trade of Polynesian slaves to South America, shows that the individuals are closely related to contemporary Polynesians. These data potentially provide further support for early contact between Polynesians and Native Americans but they could also be the result of the European-mediated transportation of people. More convincing are the results of a genome-wide study of the modern-day inhabitants of Easter Island, which provided statistical support for Native American admixture that can be dated to 1280–1495, several hundred years before Europeans reached the islands in 1722. However, only evidence of Polynesian and Native American admixture in human remains that pre-date colonization in the Americas would settle the debate.(source)

In an article on the Rapa Nui people, this controversial point should not be stated as bare fact and probably should not be dwelt upon as WP:TOOSOON the declaration is being made. It's much the same here as if Wikipedia had existed back when Thor Heyerdahl's claims were first made. The temptation at the time may have been to report this "new discovery" as breakthrough fact, but we should be adopting a conservative reporting as through the WP:CRYSTAL we cannot see.
jps (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't stated as bare fact and there wasn't the slightest bit of WP:CRYSTAL. As long as we are saying things to avoid, how about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Here you quote another reliable source (one I tried to incorporate as well, but alas, the paywall) that thinks this material is worth discussing in order to argue this material isn't worth discussing. Agricolae (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, are we talking past each other? These are the points I would like to see in the article: (1) some wonder whether the Rapa Nui traveled back-and-forth to South America, (2) there are genetic markers of Europeans and Amerindians in their modern genome, (3) it is controversial to assert pre-eighteenth century contact, but there are researchers who are currently making this claim on the basis of genetic evidence, sweet potatoes, and chickens. I think, however, that this shouldn't be the defining feature of the history of the people, though, and focusing on this controversy in the discussion of their history without mentioning their connection to Polynesia prominently is what I think may be WP:UNDUE. jps (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The following comments are based upon years of researching fringe theories about the Rapa Nui (mostly that they hung out with aliens), a little bit of pre-existing knowledge about the culture and history (some of which might have been skewed by those fringe theories), the arguments presented in this thread, about a half-hour of google/google scholar searching and a complete unfamiliarity with this particular hypothesis before now. You have been forewarned.
Seems to me like you're both right. This seems like a minority-position hypothesis that's being taken seriously, but hasn't made any real impact. So, by the definition of "fringe" as "being on the fringes of science" it's fringe and jps is right. But this hypothesis operates on a whole other level than the "the Easter island statues are alien landing beacons, man!" type of fringe, whereby "fringe" is generally defined as "pseudoscience". So my advice is to make sure that you're both using the same definition of "fringe", then compare notes and see if you really disagree with each other. Bear in mind that "on the fringes of science" might be utterly fascinating, but it should still generally be treated as something that's on the fringes of science: with very little coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, and here is what I am seeing, based on little prior familiarity with the fringe history of the question. One genetic study with very large error bars that is perfectly acceptable and included in the article, while a second genetic study with much narrower error bars (plus mention of several others that have been interpreted by secondary sources as consistent) is rejected as Thor-Heyerdahlesque fringe and criticized for potential inaccuracy and lack of significance (e.g. only 10% admixture). Why is a genetic study with a confidence interval just barely large enough to encompass the conventional view noteworthy while a genetic study that is a bit more precise not? As I see it, our criteria for genetic evidence (from the same author, no less) being noteworthy shouldn't amount to choosing the data to fit the hypothesis. Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
As I see it, the amount of coverage any study (regardless of its structure, weaknesses, authorship, etc) gets in reliable sources should be the factor that informs our use of it in the article. It may be an impeccable study, with no recognizable weaknesses, from a well-respected scientists and an unimpeachable structure that was subsequently confirmed by independent researchers, but if it only has 2 cites in the literature, it's barely worth a mention. On the other hand, if a study is just all around piss-poor to the point that homeopaths point at it and laugh at its ludicrous controls, but it has 150 cites in the literature, we should describe it and its results in some detail. Remember, we're not the arbiters of truth, we're just cut-rate journalists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I remember, but that is not what I am saying. I am saying that there is not an appreciable difference between them in terms of citation in secondary sources (the younger one is cited fewer times but in 'better' secondary sources), that the second should not be subjected to our own critical evaluation of its quality while accepting the first at face value, and that if anything we are being 'arbiters of truth' in only including the one with conclusions we like. Agricolae (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The study from 2014 has been cited 10 times while the study from 2007 has been cited 28 times. I don't think one study deserves more or less inclusion than the other, nor do I think that's necessarily the thing I may take issue with. What I'm not particularly fond of is the large amount of text devoted to this speculation in this version: [9] Two full paragraphs are devoted to the speculation about South America contact while almost nothing is said about what is known about the history of the Rapa Nui on the island itself! It strikes me as WP:UNDUE. jps (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. I guarantee that the accepted work on the history of the people is much more widely accepted by the scholarly community (a criteria I was using just as a rule of thumb; there's more to it than just counting cites). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) And I did that because the inclusion of the 2007 study seemed to open the door for it, particularly as I had seen both the genetic and yam studies mentioned in 'better' secondary sources than was the case for the 2007 one, making them, in my mind, more noteworthy by comparison. The article does need more on the people themselves, but I lack the source material or basic knowledge to expand that part. How about you? Agricolae (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am reading a book on Rapa Nui right now which is why I noticed the issue in the first place. I think a Google Scholar search of the history of the island itself can be useful for this. I don't find your text particularly objectionable -- only that it was all that was written and so it gave a sensation that this was the only important aspect of this well-studied history. jps (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to get that printed on my business cards - 'not particularly objectionable.' ;) Agricolae (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
As long as you give me the citation! ;P jps (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Public opinions on evolution

A new Gallup poll is out.

I cannot remember all the different pages on the creation-evolution controversy which reference public opinions on evolution, but they probably need updating.

jps (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Rape tree

This AFD [10] may be of interest, since the main keep argument is a probably fictional thing may still be notable as some people believe in it. My personal take is that it dies not meet WP:GNG in any case, though the article creator is insistent that getting mentioned in congress confers notability. Artw (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

New Coherent catastrophism

It's also got about twice the amount of words in a quote than we normally allow, but I haven't trimmed it yet. Parts of it have been added to Younger Dryas impact hypothesis and Göbekli Tepe (where the talk page discussion concluded that the research was too new to use, as well as by unqualified people, ie a Chemical engineers Professor and his student). See Talk:Göbekli Tepe#Sweatman and Tsikritsis 2017

The concept itself is mentioned in Impact winter, C. Leroy Ellenberger, William Napier (astronomer) and Victor Clube. The bulk of the main article is the huge quote from Sweatman and Tsikritis whose research mainly owes homage to Graham Hancock and Andrew Collins. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Chopped the long quote and fiddled a bit with the rest, seems it was/is not ready to go live. Vsmith (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Coherent catastrophism should most definitely not be classed as fringe. It is accepted as mainstream in astronomy. Indeed, physically, it is simply stating the obvious - when a giant comet breaks up in the inner solar system the earth can be expected to experience increased risk of bombardment. It's a no brainer, and no academic would dispute it. What they might, and have, disputed are the catastrophic consequences of the Taurid meteor stream specifically, which corresponds to the very latest period of coherent catastrophism according to Clube and Napier and their colleagues. Again, this is not really disputed, as much as debated, within the current astronomical literature. Yes, the concept is mentioned very briefly elsewhere, but it is not explained. An explanation is necessary for other wiki pages (Gobekli Tepe, Younger Dryas etc). Your edits are over-cautious and biased.

Regarding the Sweatman and Tsikritsis paper - it is not relevant that they are engineers. Where does it say that engineers can't contribute to other research fields in the WIki Rules? What matters is where the article is published. It is published in a mainstream archaeological journal whose editor is highly respected in the field. It has been peer-reviewed by archaeologists (three, actually, if you care to read the paper). There is no reason to censor this.

You are quite right the quote is too long. I will correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystifiedCitizen (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@MystifiedCitizen: I see "three anonymous referees for constructive comments" with no information about their professions. Given that the journal covers "the dual nature of archaeology and cultural heritage with science which includes, amongst others, natural science applied to archaeology (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, geophysics, astronomy), archaeology, ancient history, cultural sustainability, astronomy in culture, physical anthropology, digital heritage, new archaeological finds reports, historical archaeology, architectural archaeology, ethnoarchaeological prospectives," I don't think you can state with such certainty that these were archaeologists. I'm not sure what the practical difference is between "disputed" and "debated" - what kind of debate could there be over something that isn't disputed? And of course it's completely relevant that the authors were engineers. How could it not be? And please don't throw around words like "censor". The issue here so far as the Sweatman paper goes is whether it meets WP:UNDUE - I think that this needs to wait until it is discussed by other peer reviewed sources. Extraordinary claims about Göbekli Tepe should only be added at that point. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism. jps (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@jps, would you mind weeding out the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article? I started to do it but got chewed out by Oshawa.74.70.146.1 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, Oshawa did not "chew you out". You deleted a referenced sentence without any explanation whatsoever, and that is the reason Oshawa gave for reverting your change. I am not surprised in the least by Oshawa's action, given the level of IP-based vandalism on Wikipedia. When you make an edit the burden is on you to explain it, at a minimum in an edit summary, if you want it to stick. Agricolae (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
A good rational for that removal would be that Scientific Reports is a less-than reliable source in spite of its publisher. jps (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Adelle Davis

Folks who have this board watchlisted may want to take a look at the recent editing at Adelle Davis, which has included using alt med practitioner/advocates as sources for material there. Yobol (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest

At Talk:List of fake news websites there is a vigorous discussion about whether we should list things like blogs that promote conspiracy theories as "fake news sites" or whether that designation should be reserved for websites that attempt to fool the reader into thinking that they are legitimate news sites. Your input would be most appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Autism Research Institute - Here's a can of worms...

This article is about the Autism Research Institute, an organization that used to promote the pseudoscientific belief that vaccines cause autism, but no longer does.

Two years ago, the article underwent a major rewrite by CorporateM (talk · contribs), who has disclosed a conflict of interest. The draft was approved by admin Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), who may have acted a bit too quickly on this occasion.

The "new" and current version of this article is problematic. The article is a spin intended to convince it's reader that the organization has been completely transformed in a few years. But the main problem is that the writer removed any mention that the view the company still promotes, which is that nutrition and "toxins" cause autism, is also not supported by mainstream science. This was said clearly in the January 2015 version, but was removed in the corporate version of the article.

A Quackwatch article gives a more complete story about the organization, for those interested.

What I suggest, if this gains consensus, is that we start by reverting to the January 2015 version of the artice, and move on from there. KarlPoppery (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan; I agree that many of the changes made since January 2015 are problematic. To cite one example, such statements as the one near the end, that the organization "now focuses heavily on nutrition and reducing a child's exposure to toxins" implies that there is at least some credible scientific evidence supporting that approach; there is not. To be clear, no one disputes that proper nutrition and reduced exposure to toxins are good things -- but the evidence that malnutrition and toxin exposure have any role in the pathogenesis of autism is anecdotal at best. And of course, everyone's definition of "toxins" is quite different. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Bob Lazar

Bob Lazar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For those who take on ET, there is a minor edit war in a UFO-related article. -Location (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

European medieval magic

The article European medieval magic opens with "This article will discuss...". Groan. Then at times it wanders into ambiguous, borderline-in-universe tone, about demons, or elves, and "those who practiced it put themselves at risk of physical and spiritual assault from the demons they sought to control".

I'm sorry I can't even think about taking on this page. But I figured someone(s) here would probably be motivated to do some work on it. Alsee (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It sadly reads like a thesis dumped here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Because it is. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

James B. Adams (professor)

James B. Adams (professor) is about a ASU professor who's also an Anti-Vaxer[1], but that's not clearly indicated and the article makes problematic claims. I'd need help on this one, not sure how to navigate between WP:PSCI and WP:BLP. KarlPoppery (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/asu-autism-professor-promotes-anti-vaccine-film-despite-doctors-protests-8241429
I'll work on this too. Thanks. Delta13C (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
As will I. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I found the article because he's associated with the Autism Research Institute, which promotes fringe beliefs despite it's respectable sounding name. This group somehow owns "autism.com", which is worrying. Sadly the press often incorrectly assumes that they are a serious scientific organization. It might be worthwhile to look for more article related to this organization and check them for scientific accuracy. KarlPoppery (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Turks are Sumerians" on Tengri

Tengri#See_also currently has a link to the word Dingir, claiming that the two words might be linked. The pseudolingustic connection between the Sumerian and Turkish languages is a belief that Turkish nationalists have been trying to push for years ([11], [12], [13]).

Since the article is currently semi-ed (Thanks to those same nationalists), I can't remove the link. Would someone mind? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Best way to characterize conversion therapy re: pseudoscience

There is a thread at Talk:Conversion therapy#"not discussed" revert regarding the best way to characterize conversion therapy in the lead. Seeking input. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas - help with Italian

I've just deleted a bit of copyvio from a section discussing Lucio Russo. Of what's left, some is sourced to a paper here in Italian reviewing Russo. I decided to translate the conclusion. This bit:

"Tuttavia, io sono convinto che i navigatori fenici possano essere arrivati sulle isole americane e forse anche sulle coste continentali. Non vi è motivo di dubitarne, le prove e le evidenze culturali, biologiche e archeologiche, molto ben presentate da Russo nella prima parte del libro, potrebbero già quasi provarlo e in futuro potrebbero anche moltiplicarsi fino a raggiungere quella massa critica che consenta di modificare lo scenario. Al contempo, sono assolutamente certo che la dimostrazione di Lucio Russo sul rimpicciolimento del mondo operato da Tolomeo e sul primo meridiano che passa per le Piccole Antille sia infondata, tecnicamente e filologicamente scorretta, nonché viziata da evidenti forzature e interpretazioni ad hoc, evitando accuratamente altre ipotesi, nemmeno menzionate. Un libro interessante che vale la pena di leggere con le dovute accortezze: il lettore disarmato potrebbe prendere per buono ciò che non è in grado di valutare o di comprendere, e l’autore ha per questo una grande responsabilità: quella di non essere riuscito a fornire al lettore gli strumenti necessari per il formarsi di un proprio giudizio critico."

which interestingly enough as the editor who added the source somehow forgot to mention it, translates as:

"However, I am convinced that Phoenician sailors can be reached on the American islands and perhaps even on the continental coasts. There is no reason to doubt it, the evidence and cultural, biological and archaeological evidence, well presented by Russians in the first part of the book, could almost prove it and in the future could also multiply to reach that critical mass that would scenario. At the same time, I am absolutely certain that Lucio Russo's demonstration of the world's plethora of Ptolemy's work and of the first meridian that passes on the Little Antilles is unfounded, technically and philologically incorrect, and is spoiled by obvious forcing and ad hoc interpretations, Hypothesis, not even mentioned. An interesting book that is worth reading with due diligence: the disarmed reader might take for good what he is unable to evaluate or understand, and The author has a big one for that Responsibility: that of not being able to provide the reader with the tools necessary for the formation of his own critical judgment."

It seems to me that some of this should be added to the section but I'm struggling with bits of the translation, esp. the "world's plethora" bit. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong about the copyvio, the article I found copied ours. @N591real:, it was you who added the source but not the criticism of Russo, not a good idea at all, but perhaps you can polish up the translation. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
If you isolate "sul rimpicciolimento del mondo operato da Tolomeo" and retranslate it, 'plethora' becomes 'shrinking' - 'Russo's demonstration of the shringing of the world in Ptolomy's work'. This matches what is already in the article, cited to the Valerio paper (ref 19). By the way, I see two places where your translation tool has dropped critical concepts - translated simply as 'Hypothesis' is "evitando accuratamente altre ipotesi" (very loosely, as I understand it, 'carefully avoiding [mention of] alternative hypotheses'), and "che consenta di modificare lo scenario" as 'that would scenario' - it should be 'that would agree to alter the scenario', (which I take to mean 'in the future could build to achieve a critical mass for paradigm change', but I may not have this right). Agricolae (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Here it is my little help, as requested by Doug Weller: "However, I am convinced that Phoenician sailors COULD HAVE ARRIVED on the American islands and perhaps even on the continental coasts. There is no reason to doubt it, the PROOFS and cultural EVIDENCES, biological and archaeological, VERY well presented by RUSSO in the first part of the book, could ALREADY almost prove it and in the future could also multiply (THEMSELVES) UNTIL REACHING that critical mass that would ALLOW TO MODIFY THE scenario. At the same time, I am absolutely certain that Lucio Russo's demonstration ABOUT THE SHRINKING of the world DONE by Ptolomy and ABOUT the first meridian that passes on the Little Antilles is unfounded, technically and philologically incorrect, FURTHERMORE is spoiled by obvious forcing and ad hoc interpretations, BYPASSING CAREFULLY hypothesis, not even mentioned. An interesting book that is worth reading with due PRECAUTIONS: the disarmed reader might take for good what he is unable to evaluate or understand, and the author has BECAUSE OF THIS (REASON) A HUGE responsibility: that of not being able to provide the reader with the tools necessary for the formation of his own critical judgment." In capital letters are my additions. Regards, --N591real (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not that good. And N591real has been CU blocked as a sock (as has Nemetope, both as socks, not sockmasters). Doug Weller talk 15:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Waking the Tiger

Following recent deletion, this article has reappeared. There is some dispute about the choice of sourcing and extent of its use within a WP:FRINGE context. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes a quiet redirect and watchlisting can be superior to creating a redlink that's bait for those who wish to keep recreating the article, though in this case they RfDd the redirect... sigh. Maybe AfD and salt? Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories - fringe source being pushed

See this edit Elio Cadelo believes the Romans visited American 500 years before Columbus, and that they were latecomers! The Italian Amazon site[14] says "The Romans visited America 1500 years before Columbus. Historical records leave no doubt: in imperial Rome was in possession of scientific knowledge, astronomical, nautical and geographical necessary to cross the Atlantic and arrive in the New World. The Latin texts speak of new lands to the west while numerous artifacts on display in the Italian and European museums prove that between the two sides of the Atlantic there were exchanges. The Romans were great navigators: east trading with India, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and their explorations led them to the Pacific islands and beyond. To the north they reached the Orkney Islands, Iceland, Greenland and perhaps along that route, they came over. In Africa, the presence of Roma is evidenced by numerous artefacts found both on the West Coast and on the East. II guide to these trips is in the writings of Pliny, Ptolemy, Herodotus, Seneca, Diodoro Siculo, Plutarch, Tacitus, Virgil and many other Greek and Latin authors. Roman sailors had technical and scientific skills such as to calculate the latitude and longitude and geographical knowledge were far superior to those of the sailors of the Middle Ages. The Romans were neither the first nor the only ones to arrive in the New World before Christopher Columbus: genetics, archeology and literature prove that Polynesians, Indians, Chinese, Phoenicians, Carthaginians and many other ancient peoples landed in America." He's an Italian Barry Fell. The website[15] User:N591real points to in their edit summary describes him as "Journalist, graduated in political Science, editor and special correspondent of the Giornale Radio Rai for Science and Environment. He worked on the "Corriere della Sera", in "The Morning," was co-worker of "Panorama", "Science Two thousand", "Period." Author and co-author of numerous publications such as: Seven Nobel for later(Teknos), The Mental Unemployment in Naples (Longo), a rituala devil, two cultures(History and Popular Medicine); has cared for Marsilio Editore Idea ofNature, 13 scientists are confronted. He received for the dissemination and scientific information and, in 2007 ENEA 1999 Prize, the Premio Giovanni Maria Pace for Science, he was a member of the Working Group on Information and communicat..." No way is this a reliable source. I'm of for the day for a foodie festival soon. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that this is a page about fringe theories why is this really an issue (Undue possibly)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, setting aside the nature of the claim, a jpeg of a book jacket is not an appropriate WP:RS. But yes, there is so much of this genre that we can't mention every claim, and should be taking our guide from secondary sources to determine which are noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It's stated more or less as fact, this isn't a page for every fringe theory - we should only add those which have been discussed in reliable secondary sources., and he added it as fact at Template:Territories with limited Roman Empire occupation & presence in the contact and exploration section. Also, the page isn't just about fringe theories, it includes some material which has been verified, eg Norse contact,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

::::Sincerely I only added some information about "another pineapple". I don't want to promote any "fringe theory"! I think that Elio Cadelo is a famous journalist in Italy (of the RAI, the official Italian Radio-TV institution: he is "Scrittore, Caporedattore giornale radio Rai per la scienza e l'ambiente") who is well accepted & judged in historian circles of Italy. So, for me he is a "Reliable source for claims of other pineapples: Elio Cadelo has won the Premio ENEA 1999 (please read https://www.ibs.it/libri/autori/Elio%20Cadelo", as I wrote). Here it is a video where Cadelo comments his book about the Romans in America in the "Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici e Geografici": [16]. It is in Italian, but I can give a translation if requested. Anyway, I just wanted to add this information...and nothing else....(but allow me to add that the pineapple shown in the hands of the roman kid inside the Geneva museum (see http://www.lsdmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/resizephp.jpg and that was quickly made disappear by Doug Weller) has no round "grapes" near his hand like the wine-grape fruit, but "rectangular pieces" that looks astonishingly similar to this photo of an ananas:https://avatanplus.com/files/resources/mid/573ecbf4cac11154cd4cb45e.png ). And we know that ananas is a fruit that can survive many weeks of travel, with only the loss of the green leaves....So, I think this Wikipedia article must add evidences like these pineapples and not only evidences about "Claims involving California canoes" & "Claims involving chickens". Regards to all of you.--N591real (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

EC may or may not be notable enough for his claims to be documented, but that is not the same thing as presenting these claims as facts. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
In any case, the images shown don't actually look that much alike. I've looked at a number of pineapple images and they don't show the same organisation of the segments. But that's another issue as we shouldn't be arguing whether or not the image that is claimed to be a pineapple is one, we just can't state that it is. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
So it needs rewording.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

:Allow me to remember that this article is about theories and not facts....nearly half the theories in this article are not based on facts! Why all this problem? Sincerely I cannot understand why there it is no problem about "Claims involving chickens" but there it is such comments about the Roman possible presence in America?--N591real (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The 'claims about chickens' were published in a peer-revewed, well-respected scientific journal, and referred to in several secondary sources, including other well-respected journals. Thus it is on a different level than is a theory found in some guy's book (and nowhere else). That doesn't mean it is right, but it does mean it has both met a certain bar of scrutiny and has received sufficient secondary coverage to be noteworthy. Has Cadelo's pineapple claim been repeated anywhere (anywhere independent of the author)? Second, the chicken claim is documented to an actual source making the claim, and to actual sources discussing it, not a picture of the cover of a book. True or false or somewhere in between, no claim is appropriate for Wikipedia if it is only supported with a picture. Were you to cite the actual page on which the claim was made, that would improve the situation immeasurably. Finally, there is no dispute over whether the chickens are really chickens, while putting the word 'pineapples' in quotes does not sufficiently convey that this is just one person's opinion that the items appearing in the relevant artwork are really pineapples. It would be better to tone it down, to say that Cadelo interpreted several other artworks as containing pineapples. So, rather than drawing a false equivalence with the chicken situation and simply edit warring, you would be better off using the Talk page to try to convince others that the claims are indeed noteworthy (not 'just as noteworthy as that other thing', but noteworthy in its own right), and to achieve language that would be acceptable. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

:::So, in your opinion what is in the hands of the roman kid? At this point I like to leave all this mess. All this attacks -that is what I feel, sincerely- are on a simple refusal to allow that something roman can have reached America, but if it is Phoenician or Chinese or Polynesian....well that's acceptable. This reminds me the discussion (on academic circles, of course) about the latin word "perdomita", related to the fact that Britain -according to Tacitus who wrote "Britannia perdomita, sed olim missa est" (Britain was totally conquered but quickly was lost)- was fully conquered by the roman Agricola. As you probably know the british circles of historians linked to the "glory" of the British empire cannot accept that the word perdomita is made in latin from the words "PERfecta DOMInaTA" (meaning 'completely dominated' in classical latin) and so they deny the total conquest of Britain by Agricola. So, as written before, I like to leave all this mess & these attacks: I semi-retire from Wikipedia. --N591real (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to draw their own conclusions. A Wikipedia editor looking at a picture and drawing their own conclusion is what is called Original Research, and is prohibited. Further, your characterization is inaccurate - there is a whole section of the article on claims to Roman-American contacts, so there is no such refusal - it is specifically the noteworthiness and precise expression of Cadelo's opinion about other pineapples in art that is in dispute. Agricolae (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll add that giving a talk at a conference, or even favorable comments at a conference, aren't significant enough for something to be included. Even an archaeology conference, which if course this wasn't. Doug Weller[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

So some users and admin Doug Weller have obtained to impose what they wanted. Congratulations....But at the end nobody has answered my question: in your opinion what is in the hands of the roman kid in the Geneva museum?......obviously it can be ONLY an ananas from America! My last four cents with the same words of Galileo to the abuses of the Inquisition: EPPUR SI MUOVE....and at the end all of us admit that he was right!. So, in a similar way I am sure soon or later the truth about these pineapples in roman hands will come out.--N591real (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I happen to know for a fact that it is the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. jps (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@N591real: have you ever read (or even heard of) WP:OR? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
OR means we cannot use what we know to be true, we can only us what RS say. But we should also treat other users with respect, not ridicule. No one here knows what it is, and as no one was alive or sailed with the Romans no one knows how far they got.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't alive at the time, and didn't walk alongside him, so I don't know anything about Napoleon or his campaigns? I wasn't alive at the time,so I don't know how the Alps formed ? Bummer, if only there were fields of rigorous inquiry to find out what happened when I wasn't yet alive... we could call them "history", "geology" and stuff, and it would be sooooo cool. Then we could even use the specialists in these exciting new fields are reliable sources. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 10:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
And this is the kind of belittling and condescending attitude I thought was against the rules. Maybe do what you preach and actually bother to read...where did I say anything about his sourcing, or that we should not rely on RS? I can see a few OR comments in this thread, and I think that being wrong (but honestly wrong) is far less a crime then saying wrong things to take the piss. This was a new user, not an experienced edd acting like a kid in a playground.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Nor did I say you were advocating unreliable sources. I was reacting to your "no one knows as no one was alive" bit, which struck me as a terribly silly argument. Amusingly, I first heard it from Ken Ham. Anyway; the problem with the new editor being discussed is not whether they're wrong, but that, despite numerous links and patient explanations (not from me; mine were quickly impatient, I freely admit), they seem unable to grasp OR, or the distinction between reporting on speculations and reporting them as facts. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 11:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nemetope, for your support and comments (and also for erasing the "childish vandalism"). I am glad that you have personally seen the small statue with the roman kid in the Geneva museum and find that the roman boy has in his hand a pineapple. And thanks to Slatersteven for writing that "we should also treat other users with respect, not ridicule"....I am sure soon or later the truth about these pineapples in roman hands will come out, even in Wikipedia! Thanks again.--N591real (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

What even tells you it is a fruit? The 'dimples' are round, more like grapes and looking nothing like those of a pineapple, and their regular grid-like arrangement, as opposed to offset (pineappple) or random (grapes) is unlike either, so there may be a large degree of artistic licence in whatever is being portrayed by the sculpter. I think it could just as well be a decorated glass flask, along the lines of these: [17][18][19]. This is why we don't reach our own conclusions - because they only represent the personal opinion of a single editor, and another editor may have a completely different perspective. Agricolae (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Agricolae: Thanks, I meant to post about the grid-like arrangement which seemed pretty obviously different to images of pineapples I checked on the web. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Even if we, editors reading this thread, all totally agreed that this definitely is an honest-to-goodness pineapple, (I for one am violently neutral on this issue) we still c/shouldn't write that it is, per WP:OR. (Which, admittedly, would be a tad hard to enforce in that hypothetical scenario). I would be quite happy to have the article say "X thinks this is a pineapple; Y disagrees", for even remotely notable values of X and Y, as has been done in the article for other similar claims. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 14:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

:::Thanks for your thanks, N591real....I have seen personally the small statue of the roman boy I am totally sure it is an ananas, because of the pineapple rectangular pieces near the kid hand that cannot be dimples grapes but only pieces of leaves in the first stages of decomposition (probably this fruit was many weeks old). Here it is an image that shows the leaves falling: the first line of leaves covers the top of the ananas "dimples" ([20]). I also remember the ananas of the Geneva museum was very similar to those imported from Puerto Rico: it is a species of pineapple imported in Switzerland. Finally I want to pinpoint that I agree with the above proposal of Gamall Wednesday Ida. --Nemetope (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

What proposal? that we find someone noteworthy saying it? There are three separate reeasons for disputing it. 1) it thusfar has only been referenced to a picture; 2) it was stated in a manner that made it appear to be a presentation of fact, as opposed to just one person's opinion; 3) that person is deemed not sufficintly expert for his opinions to be noteworthy (this is Gamal Wednesday Ida's "for even remotely notable values of X and Y"). Giving a specific citation would address the first, and restating it in Cadelo's voice would address the second, but the third would remain and it trumps the other two (it doesn't matter what form they take if the opinion itself is not notable). Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::Sincerely, I don't care of all this discussion about proposal. I only found another image that is similar to the ananas in the roman boy hand: ([21]) and has leaves falling and covering the top of the ananas. For me (I repeat) there it no doubt at all, after having seen the small statue: it is a pineapple similar to the Puerto Rico species called often "Red Spanish". And I want to pinpoint that the person who wrote the book is a serious researcher who has been officially awarded, not a college student promoting OR.--Nemetope (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You can find somewhat serious people for every possible opinion, no matter how silly. The standards for notability here are a tad higher than not being a college student. Whether or not there is doubt for you, there are also millions of people that have no doubt that there is a face on mars or on their toasted bread. Our personal inner feelings are of no relevance, because such are unreliable; hence the relevant policies. You say you "don't care of all this discussion about proposal". Trouble is, such discussions are how consensus is reached here. You'll have to care at some point if you want to get anything done, rather than WP:IDHT. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Some reviews of the book (in Italian, Chrome does a great job of translating them)>[22] Doug Weller talk 18:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is pretty straightforward, I'm having trouble seeing the problem here. The author of this book is not a notable person. That seems blatantly obvious from a simple google search of their name. The arguments supporting them are pure OR. While it's okay to use a original thought and arguments to make a case for what to include in an article (for instance, when there is doubt about the most common name for an article, it's perfectly fine for editors to compose their own arguments to support their preferred title, and to see which title has the best arguments), it's not okay to use original thought and arguments to make the case that a non-notable person's theory be presented as fact in an article. Furthermore, I can't possible be the only one to find it suspicious that two brand new editors, both pushing the same obscure POV would happen to show up at around the same time and argue in lockstep agreement with each other. How the hell is this worth debating? I really don't get it. Somebody needs to file an SPI (or just take it to ANI, as this looks pretty duckish to me), and if it becomes clear that these usernames aren't the same person, then simply stop stop pandering to them once it becomes clear (which happened a while back, IMHO) that they aren't listening. If they edit war on the article, that can be dealt with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if it goes to SPI, throw in this IP, which came in fast and hard out of nowhere at some point. I don't think going there will be necessary, though. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I see both users have been blocked by DoRD. Hardly surprising, but I can't find an SPI case, though. (I see Jobas there though, another POV pusher I met before) — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 14:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did the CU on Jobas. The other two look to be socks of someone who's been socking at this article for a long time, but I wasn't involved in the block. I've struck the sock comments. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure we're all completely shocked that something this devious was going on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The socks blocked by DoRD have been globally locked, along with a number of others Brunodam socks. Followed by some nonsense on and off-wiki. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Michael Connell

Michael Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the left's version of Murder of Seth Rich. I saw a notice in WP:RSN about one of the sources, however, I think a second look should be taken at all of the sourcing. -Location (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit it, but I've placed it under American politics discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Steve Huff

Steve Huff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bio of a guy who invented a box to talk to ghosts is heavy on pseudoscience and light nil on reliable independent sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Are there any reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? -Location (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Haven't found any. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
In an amazing coincidence, I just finished inventing a ghost that talks to boxes! What are the odds? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Then I guess somebody needs to write an article about you! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Huff. jps (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives to Darwinism

Is it me, or does this seem like a POV fork, especially given the title ("Darwinism"?). --Calton | Talk 00:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The alternate title "non-Darwinian theories of evolution" actually might be a better one, but at a cursory glance, it looks like a pretty good history of other theories. Does not appear to be a religious fork. I'd take a non-confrontational approach and see if maybe a title move would be wise or not. The lead editor is generally a solid sort. Montanabw(talk) 00:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a particular fan of "alternative" which suffers from WP:GEVAL. Compare non-standard cosmologies which I think handles the issue of titling a little better. jps (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The word "Darwinism" shouldn't be used. Although it is a real word that was used historically, most scientists now avoid it. It's often used by creationists to try to make the theory of evolution look like an "ism", an ideology rather than a scientific theory. "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" or "evolution by natural selection" would be better. KarlPoppery (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, Chiswick Chap is a good editor who is generally respected. I'll ping him to discuss if he'd be OK with a different title, or maybe it could go to the article talkpage. I don't think there is any real crisis here. Montanabw(talk) 02:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Referring to evolution by means of natural selection as "Darwinism" is itself not NPOV. Creationists love to smear the opposing view as an "-ism". I don't have a specific source on hand, but I've heard it a bunch of times in lectures by Eugenie Scott (probably mostly on the NCSE's YouTube channel). Even without reading the article, I can tell that at the very least it needs a new title. I'll take a look at the article itself shortly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The article is a history of ideas, and 'Darwinism' is a widely-used term in the philosophy of biology. In case anyone supposes it's an attack on D., I just had to tweak the article to avoid charges of tendentiously supporting D. by ignoring the good points of the other theories... We can't call it by its modern name 'Evolution' as all the theories purport to be about that; 'Darwin's theory' would include both pangenesis and Lamarckism since he personally supposed both of those mechanisms contributed alongside what modern biologists construe as Darwinism (evolution by means of segregating genes, small mutations, recombination, and natural selection: a snappy title, I'm sure you'll agree). I do love the claim that people can tell a new title is required without even glancing at the article, proper storm in a teacup stuff. Personally I don't think the actual title matters much as all the other titles will be redirects. Oh, and 'non-Darwinian evolution' was rather polemically (can I say that on a talk page?) co-opted by the genetic drift folks, despite the fact that their theory (molecular clocks and all that) never affects the evolution of actual phenotypes. Well, my tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I can appreciate what you are trying to do with the article, but you must understand that Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, nor in an ideal world. "Darwinism" is used in philosophy of biology, but 99% of people who use it think it means the same thing as "evolution". I don't need to read your article to know this -- in fact the main problem with your article is that it completely ignores this. Having a Wikipedia article with the title "alternatives to Darwinism" is clearly problematic in 2017, regardless of how inoccuous the title may be in the context of scholarly literature. I don't necessarily think you are a creationist POV-pusher (or a troll deliberately pretending not to understand what the problem is); I don't need to think that to tell you that the article as written is problematic. On the off-chance that you are neither a creationist POV-pusher, nor a troll who knows exactly what he is doing and doing it anyway, nor (and this is what I think you are) a good-faith Wikipedia contributor deliberately violating our guidelines because you think we should just ignore the bogus "controversy", and you actually have no idea what the rest of us are complaining about, I'll give you some links to explain. Searching Google News for the exact title of your article brings up four hits, all of them about the BS attempt by creationists to get "alternative theories" (read: creationism) taught in high school biology classes. Search for a near-synonym (in common language) makes it even clearer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I should clarify: By "troll", I don't mean "internet troll". I meant that I don't think CC is a troll in the sense of deliberately feigning ignorance of the problematic nature of the article as written for the purpose of humour, rather than for the purpose of making this a better encyclopedia. Somewhat like what Dawkins was doing here. Or, to give a more recent example on Wikipedia, what 99.999% of readers who accidentally stumbled across this article probably thought Wikipedians were doing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
My personal views? I'm with the mainstream of evolutionary biology. I suggest we immediately rename the article to Alternatives to evolution by natural selection if that is less controversial. I'm happy to go with any title that people are comfortable with. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that's all I needed to know. That rules out option 1, but whether passes option 2, 3 or 4 (all of which assume you aren't a creationist), renaming the article probably won't be enough. Clarifying that the article is not about "evolution vs. [young earth creationism, old earth creationism, ID, etc., etc.]", preferably in the lead as well as the body, is also probably necessary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I will just drop-in an expanded point that I made in the GA/1 page of the article: what is the rationale for this article as distinct from History of evolutionary thought? Perhaps it's a failure to see it on my part, but if this article only covers non-Darwinian theories of evolution (as opposed to non-evolutionary theories of creation), then what is included here that isn't there? Or what is it that this article can do that that article can't? I am sceptical that the differences warrant an entire separate article, especially one that veers (perhaps unavoidably) into potential violations of guidelines. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That is an excellent point. By making the page devoted exclusively to "alternatives", much of the history gets left out. There should be some editorial reason for doing this. If, for example, the history of evolutionary thought was too unwieldy. We spun out non-standard cosmology just so that our page on physical cosmology would not get bogged down. In any case, renaming with something like "alternatives" in the title still to me smacks of WP:GEVAL. jps (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Before I saw the above comments, my initial reaction was that in order to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE a more appropriate title would be "History of evolutionary thought", and lo and behold, we already have History of evolutionary thought. It seems that any suitable content the new article might contain should be merged into History of evolutionary thought. Manul ~ talk 13:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
(much later) None of the theories are compatible with special creation (not even 'theistic evolution', which presumes change over geological time), so no funny balance is being set up; we're just describing the various explanations that biologists have considered in the past two centuries. The article barely overlaps with the History, as I've explained below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with Manul on this, but I don't think they're wrong. It just seems to me that we have more than enough sources and material for two articles, a Non-Darwinian evolutionary theories (or Alternative theories to natural selection, which sounds a bit less endorse-y than "alternatives to natural selection"). I think this one should be trimmed down to nothing but a list of such theories, with brief overviews of the history of each theory and outlines of the theory in the same level of detail they're currently given in the article, and all the trimmed material merged into History of evolutionary thought. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, thanks very much for that, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. The History is already a detailed article, but it in fact provides very little detail on the alternative theories (and does not compare them). In other words, we have a tree of articles: Evolution - History of E. - various articles including this one comparing the theories - an article on each theory. The History article is as it says a historical account; the Alternatives article focuses on the philosophy of evolution, looking in detail at alternative ways of explaining the observed facts. The different explanations began at different times, but thereafter ran in parallel (or overlapped), so historical time on its own doesn't give enough of a perspective. Instead, the article shows how the different ideas could be combined, and how each one took different forms. There are abundant reliable secondary sources on this, both historical and philosophical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

At the moment, the subject of the article is "theories of evolution, except the one about natural selection (but it is not really excepted because the article mentions it throughout, and it is one of the rows in the table)". So, how about adding one short paragraph linking to natural selection, then calling it Theories of evolution? That page is a redirect to Evolution now.

Also, why not sort the ideas chronologically? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all of these "alternatives" are properly "theories". Non-Darwinian evolution might be a way to put it? Agree with the point about chronology. jps (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Fringe theory of the week

If you can't trust Burl Ives, who can you trust?

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well that's that then. I guess we can all go home now. Mramoeba (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hasn't Burl Ives been dead for about 20 years? Or is that just what the MIBs want us to think? ‑ Iridescent 21:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe she swallowed a fly? Mramoeba (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Betteridge's Law of Headlines. jps (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It gets better: "Monroe had had phone coversations with reporter Dorothy Kilgallen, who was looking into the famous Roswell incident."

Dorothy Kilgallen (d. 1965) was a celebrated journalist, whose column covered the topics of show business, politics, and organized crime. Since when is Roswell remotely connected to these topics?

Her article does not mention it, but there are conspiracy theories about Kilgallen's own death. That the "accidental" drug death was not accidental, but a poisoning case. Which unfortunately is her main claim to fame nowadays. Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum

FWIW, there is currently a deletion discussion regarding this creationist dinosaur museum at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum Agricolae (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I was the nominator at the AfD, but other users did provide links to significant coverage, so I took the advice I've told others, added the news content myself and withdrew my AfD. Given the notoriety this place received because it was in large part funded by Greg Gianforte, I guess it's notable enough (though I did AfD it in good faith). That said, when I did some more digging, there clearly is a lot of controversy about this place (the public schools were taking children there for field trips), so I would suggest that folks who follow this recent creationism stuff add it to their watchlist. I don't know how much ongoing drama this area faces, and it's not really a circus I want to join, but it's in my state, so I guess I'll be around a bit to watch it. Montanabw(talk) 20:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There is some peculiar language in this article: "The museum promotes the belief that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time"

This belief is quite true from a phylogenetic perspective. The birds have been reclassified as dinosaurs. Quoting our own article on the subject:

  • "Until the late 20th century, all groups of dinosaurs were believed to be extinct. The fossil record, however, indicates that birds, which are now termed "avian dinosaurs," are the modern descendants of feathered dinosaurs, having evolved from theropod ancestors during the Jurassic Period. As such, birds were the only dinosaur lineage to survive the mass extinction event."
  • "Dinosaurs are a varied group of animals from taxonomic, morphological and ecological standpoints. Birds, at over 10,000 living species, are the most diverse group of vertebrates besides perciform fish. Using fossil evidence, paleontologists have identified over 500 distinct genera and more than 1,000 different species of non-avian dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are represented on every continent by both extant species (birds) and fossil remains."
  • "Under phylogenetic nomenclature, dinosaurs are usually defined as the group consisting of Triceratops, Neornithes, their most recent common ancestor (MRCA), and all descendants. It has also been suggested that Dinosauria be defined with respect to the MRCA of Megalosaurus and Iguanodon, because these were two of the three genera cited by Richard Owen when he recognized the Dinosauria. Both definitions result in the same set of animals being defined as dinosaurs: "Dinosauria = Ornithischia + Saurischia", encompassing ankylosaurians (armored herbivorous quadrupeds), stegosaurians (plated herbivorous quadrupeds), ceratopsians (herbivorous quadrupeds with horns and frills), ornithopods (bipedal or quadrupedal herbivores including "duck-bills"), theropods (mostly bipedal carnivores and birds), and sauropodomorphs (mostly large herbivorous quadrupeds with long necks and tails)."

Not only are humans co-existing with dinosaurs under this definition. Companies such as KFC ensure that we are using some dinosaurs for food. Dimadick (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"birds have been reclassified as dinosaurs" <- what a misleading statement (this mischief I have removed from our article). In an encyclopedia any assertion that humans co-exist(ed) with dinosaurs is WP:PROFRINGE in the extreme. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You removed a statement about avian dinosaurs, without removing or addressing the scientific definition of dinosaur. I do not think you are familiar with "fringe" if you find the phylogenetic tree to be fringe science. Dimadick (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Birds are not normally referred to as dinosaurs, even though strictly taxonomically they are (depending on how you differentiate between taxa on the same evolutionary branch). You'll notice that we are not called a type of fish most of the time, either. That's why it's fringe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about phylogeny, not taxonomy. Taxonomy often classifies organisms based on outdated ideas from the 18th century. Fish are no longer considered a valid grouping, as explained in our article on them: "Tetrapods emerged within lobe-finned fishes, so cladistically they are fish as well. However, traditionally fish are rendered obsolete or paraphyletic by excluding the tetrapods (i.e., the amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals which all descended from within the same ancestry). Because in this manner the term "fish" is defined negatively as a paraphyletic group, it is not considered a formal taxonomic grouping in systematic biology. The traditional term pisces (also ichthyes) is considered a typological, but not a phylogenetic classification." Dimadick (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw a great program last week on new discoveries in China. Lots of CGi and loads of feathered dinosaurs, showed the development of the flying dinosaurs and new fossils of the earliest birds. Doug Weller talk 21:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Theory of the week

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wCFIJ-XnRY

Yes, I know that this one is a video, but trust me, it is worth it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard is sooo entertaining to read. Although I still think that California drought manipulation conspiracy theory is the most "why does this exist" conspiracy theory I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Which as I read more closely appears to have some UNDUE/PROFRINGE issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, that's not even close to being the most "why does this exist" conspiracy theory out there. (I know anything from David Icke is shooting at an open goal, but this is a strong contender for second place.) ‑ Iridescent 19:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected. There is one crazy fringe theory for every topic and kitchen sink, isn't there? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
If you ever have the urge to lose the will to live, read the seventeen pages of archives here discussing whether Wikipedia is giving due weight to the proposal that each day is actually four days long and world governments are colluding to conceal the fact. ‑ Iridescent 22:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Chemtrails have to be a contender in the "why" competition, yes? If the "because" is weather management ... it ain't working. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll see your chemtrails and raise you Phantom time hypothesis. ‑ Iridescent 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Might I humbly submit the classic [ http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, you win. Autopsy photos of a "juvenile helicopter"? Holy crap! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
And now, reading further, I see that Morgellons are just tiny little black helicopter rotor blades - even though they come in a variety of colors, and look like clothing fibers. It's amazing what you can learn (or not) when you suspend all disbelief. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Finland doesn't exist.[23] Doug Weller talk 11:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Would not surprise me. I have met plenty of people (allegedly) from Finland, but I have never met anyone who has visited there... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, now you have - I've been there several times, and even did some fishing. Maybe it was a hologram, but I'm pretty sure it was a country. Estonia is another story - probably just northern Latvia, methinks... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Serious question Yes, I'm aware this is not a forum, but I must ask: Are the authors of stuff like the black helicopter ridiculousness serious, or just yanking our collective carrot? Are there really people out there, armed with fly swatters and wearing aluminum foil deflector beanies, stalking tiny black helicopters? Or is this in the category of the Man Will Never Fly Society (motto: Birds Fly, Men Drink) -- people with a sense of humor, having a good time? Until last November I was certain that the black helicopter/hollow moon/chemtrail people couldn't possibly expect any rational human to believe any of this stuff -- and then Trump somehow convinced 80 million people to vote for him, so I just don't know anymore. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

In this case it seems to be a hoax. The person who wrote it apparently also invented the Pacific Northwest tree octopus and managed to convince people that it exists 1. He seems to do it just for the kick. All of this is far less depressing than the fact that at least 25% of the population believes in astrology, which if you think about it is just as ridiculous as the flat Earth theory or Inedia.KarlPoppery (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
One of the most devout astrology believers was a US President (Reagan). Don't get me started on astrology mythology. (I'm a Capricorn, and we're very skeptical.) DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I think stating Reagan was "one of the most devout astrology believers" might be a stretch since he flatly stated, "No policy or decision in my mind has ever been influenced by astrology." Reagan was said to have an "interest" in the subject, but his public comments on it are very sparse. I imagine that whatever interest he had was in appeasing Nancy. -Location (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Probably not the time or place, but while I know he said he followed it but never "relied on" it, it's difficult to write off as coincidence the fact that pivotal decisions were invariably made on "astrologically favorable" days. I know the case has been made that he was merely appeasing Nancy. We'll likely never know. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The "The Beatles were a hoax" people certainly appear to genuinely believe it, to judge by some of the loopier comments in their forum; likewise, a lot of David Icke's followers undoubtedly genuinely believe his theory (V (1984 TV series) was a true story and The Visitors have secretly killed world leaders and are wearing their skins to rule in their place, and the Moon doesn't actually exist and is a hologram in the sky to hide the flying saucers that monitor Earth). I strongly recommend Jon Ronson's Them to anyone starting out dipping their toes into fringery—he spent months living with all kinds of fringe cranks from the black helicopter brigade to Al Qaeda, and was sympathetic enough that most of them opened up to him.

On the ultra-crazy fringe, it gets more complicated—a lot of things start off as hoaxes but get taken up by people who genuinely believe them. (I can provide numerous reliable sources for the fact that the Union won the Civil War thanks to the intervention of an immortal vampire, who a century later moved to Hollywood, changed his name to Nicolas Cage, and became an actor. This undoubtedly started life as a joke when someone spotted a photo of a veteran who looked a lot like Cage, but since then has been picked up by people who don't get the joke.)

Remember, governments and government agencies have at various times come up with so many genuine conspiracies that have since been unmasked, that "they're hiding something from us" isn't automatically a crazy position. It's beyond doubt that programs like Project MKUltra did take place, and reasonable to assume that if this or a similar program did find something usable the government would keep it secret to avoid other nations and terrorist groups acquiring these capabilities. Likewise, anyone in Las Vegas can drive 65 miles to the northwest and see for themselves that there's an area that's unmarked on the maps which is bordered with shoot-to-kill warnings; yes, the official explanation (that they test weapons there and don't want civilians either wandering around putting themselves at risk, or taking photos of commercially sensitive new equipment) is almost certainly correct, but one can see why people think the government is trying to hide something. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a really good PhD thesis here, just waiting for some enterprising Sociology grad student to sit down and write - tracing the origins of these ridiculous memes and determining which were started as pranks and which by genuine believers - with an analysis of why the stupidest ones seem to last the longest. Josh Saviano, who grew up in my town with my kids, recently told me that he still, 20+ years later, receives at least one e-mail a week (sometimes many more) asking if he's Marilyn Manson. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I suspect most of them are actually "inappropriate extrapolation from a kernel of truth", in the same way that an ancient throw-away line from Bernie Taupin in a 1980 interview has spawned the pages of earnest craziness a Google search on Elton John satanist throws up. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Covfefe; fringe theory in the making? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
"Coverage" on a phone keyboard. Why do we have an article on this? ‑ Iridescent 15:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Because we need everything and kitchen sink about Trump documented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Holy shit, that´s an epic deletion discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Iridescent, there are, unfortunately, plenty of people that attempt to take advantage of that sliver of doubt in other reasonable people either to bail themselves out of trouble (e.g. Abraham Bolden), for an agenda (e.g. big names spreading conspiracy theories in the Murder of Seth Rich), for attention (e.g. Jean Hill) for personal gain (e.g. conspiracy authors - including academics - galore), for attention and personal gain (e.g. Madeleine Duncan Brown), or they just like to F with people (e.g. E. Howard Hunt). (I apologize if the examples are heavy on the JFK stuff.) The CIA did it should be an article here.-Location (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Autopsy photos of a 'juvenile helicopter'" thingy is obviously poking fun at exactly the kind of nonsense this topic is making fun of. The author uses the word "fantabulous", for crying out loud; have a look at his FAQ. The time cube guy and so many others are dead serious, though. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"Serious question Yes, I'm aware this is not a forum, but I must ask: Are the authors of stuff like the black helicopter ridiculousness serious, or just yanking our collective carrot? Are there really people out there, armed with fly swatters and wearing aluminum foil deflector beanies, stalking tiny black helicopters? Or is this in the category of the Man Will Never Fly Society (motto: Birds Fly, Men Drink) -- people with a sense of humor, having a good time? "

A mix of both I suspect. There are several websites, magazines, and books devoted to the craziest conspiracy theories, but there are also websites which cover them in detail with tongue-in-cheek humor or make it quite clear that they want to mock them. Ranker, for example, has several lists primarily devoted to humorously examining conspiracy theories/and or fringe theories promoted by Reddit users.

In the case of the Black helicopter theory, it may be a bit outdated. A conspiracy theory which gained moderate media attention in the 1990s, but which no longer makes any headlines.

As for not so serious websites, the video which started this conversation may be one of them. The YouTube Channel which published the video is TopTenz, which is primarily aimed at entertainment. Per their self-description: "Entertaining top 10 lists that give you a full dose of trivia and fun facts on topics from history to pop culture, from music to movies, from the bizarre to travel and everything in between. "

One of their lists tries to "prove" that Bruce Lee was superhuman, another that Adolf Hitler was a complete idiot. They do not seem to take themselves too seriously. Dimadick (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"don't want civilians ... taking photos of commercially sensitive new equipment"

Out of curiosity, isn't that illegal in the United States? I live in Alexandroupoli, Greece and there are several military camps within and without the city limits. All of them have signs reminding civilians that taking photos of the camps is illegal and could get you arrested. There is not much effort to cover anything from civilian eyes, and people can view the local tanks from an average highway. But taking pictures is a violation of anti-espionage legislation. Dimadick (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In general in the UK and places like the US and Canada who derive their laws from English law, if you're on public property the presumption is that you have the right to take photographs of whatever you can see from that spot. The US has 18 U.S. Code § 795 which gives the President the right to ban photography of specific installations, and since 9/11 the cops will hassle you if they see you paying undue attention to something strategic, but they generally don't have the power to stop you. We have a poor Legality of recording by civilians article and a decent albeit US/UK centric Photography and the law article on the topic. ‑ Iridescent 21:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Leslie Flint

This article has a lot of dubious sources on it, even a newspaper piece by Uri Geller. I am no fan of mediums and it is obvious Flint was a fraud but some of the sourcing looks wrong to me. It says for example in one reference to compare voices of Flint to those in a Youtube video. Is this not original research? 82.132.228.183 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The specific "compare for yourself" stuff definitely looks like high-octane WP:OR to me, and I have removed it. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not much of a fan of mediums, partly because as a child I read comic book stories which typically depicted them as a mixed group of professional con-artists, deluded frauds, and mentally unstable self-proclaimed prophets. (Thanks Disney comics). As an adult with a mild interest in the history of Spiritualism, I have not read anything that seriously challenges this depiction.

One problem with this article is that the biography section is so underdeveloped. No mention of parents, family, or social class. He is mentioned as wealthy, but the source of his wealth is not covered. No mention of education, passing reference that "Mr. I communicate with the dead" once worked in a cemetery, his World War II service is mentioned is passing, and that he was the founder of an organization is given without context. What was this organization? No date of death given, no cause either.

The "Fraud" section is better sourced, but the sources are contradicting each other on HOW he performed his frauds. One source suggested that he produced his cast of voices through use of prerecorded tapes, another suggests that he was a ventriloquist.

While implied in the text, it is not clearly stated that Flint did not do proper research on the backgrounds of the people he was trying to imitate. His impression of Italian-born Rudolph Valentino sounded French. (Valentino's mother was from France, not Valentino himself). His impression of Irish-born George Bernard Shaw sounded English. (Shaw's 17th-century paternal ancestor was from England, not Shaw himself). Dimadick (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Brian D. Litman, Part 2

Brian D. Litman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following up on an earlier inquiry, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D. Litman. The relevance here is in the use of a couple conspiracy websites and books. -Location (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Second sight

I have tried to redirect this article to extrasensory perception but apparently it needs more consensus, see the talk-page discussion. ScienceStudent99 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Cross-quarter day

Redirects to Wheel of the Year, which is an interpretation of European calendars peculiar to neo-paganism. I would like to redirect it instead to Scottish term days, and ensure that Wheel of the Year is a description of what neo-pagans believe, separately from the historically-established calendars. Some more eyes would be useful. To simplify, in southern England the year was and is divided into four by saints' days close to the solstices and equinoxes while in Ireland, Scotland and northern England a different set of festivals has been used. Neo-pagans claimed with no evidence that these "Celtic" and "Germanic" festivals were all celebrated in an "eightfold year". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Lamanite

I'm not sure at all about the recent changes in Lamanite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doug Weller talk 10:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yuck. There are a lot of things wrong with the way the pages on characters and stories from the Book of Mormon are presented. In general, I think any claims about connection to reality need to be couched as views of Mormons or LDS Church but not dwelt upon as they are not even close to being reliable sources for Mesoamerican archaeology and there does not seem to be any non-Mormon who thinks the Book of Mormon has any basis in reality (unlike, say, aspects of the Bible, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or even the Upanishads). Ugh. jps (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Besides The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there are other groups following Mormonism, such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Apostolic United Brethren, and the Community of Christ. Religious denominations have a tendency to splinter into rival groups and Mormons are no exception. Some or all of them may view the Book of Mormon as holy scripture.

As for the relationship of the Book of Mormon to actual history, we have a decent article on the Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Among other things: "The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which there is no evidence in pre-Columbian America. These include asses, cattle, milk, horses, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, barley, figs, silk, steel, bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, iron working, plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots." Dimadick (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat fascinatingly, there are a lot of people who are passionate about the idea that we identify the story of the boat crossing the Atlantic Ocean as occurring in 600 BC. Saying that the text identifies it during the reign of Zedekiah is, apparently, not good enough? Is the date in question somehow an important sore point for Mormon apologists? Like do they think that the six hundred years mentioned in the Book of Mormon is somehow evidence for their faith? Yep. jps (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiLeaks

More eyeballs would be valued on WikiLeaks. One user, who has almost exclusively edited this article for the past seven months, has variously made outright removals of text relating to the group's promotion of conspiracy theories, and edits at odds with what the reliable sources directly state, in a bid to downplay the issue (example). Neutralitytalk 00:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Fairly clear case of WP:SPA, yes? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, probably so. Neutralitytalk 01:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity; the True Believers will never give up

True Believers still pushing the claim that certain people have the ability to tell whether an electromagnetic field is on or off: [24] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Do they have to wear aluminum foil beanies? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
See [ http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ ]. What I am trying to figure out is how the Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity True Believers manage to spend hour after hour sitting at a computer that puts out electromagnetic fields out the ying yang. ("ying yang" is a highly technical unit of measurement...)
Seriously though, I would appreciate it if a few more editors put that article on their watch lists. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Relationship between religion and science

Hello,

An editor, who originally introduced the material years ago (in between adding OR stuff about how the Bible predicted Hitler [25], that also stands unchallenged to this day), keeps re-adding an extract from a Huffpo blog post[1] claiming, paraphrased, "non-Euclidian geometry, therefore there is no truth". The author, a former physics post-doc turned new age guru, is not notable in any way I can find. I keep reverting it, but I'm getting bored with it. Am I missing something here? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 11:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ {{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mauricio-garrido/lessons-from-non-euclidian-geometries-for-interfaith-dialogue_b_3403930.html | title=Lessons From Non-Euclidian Geometries for Interfaith Dialogue|author=Garrido, Mauricio |publisher=Huffington Post|date=August 11,2013}}

Sharyl Attkisson

Sharyl Attkisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I restored a previous version of a paragraph which seems to have been inserted solely to defame Paul Offit. Why this edit happened I leave to you to figure out.

jps (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Creationist cosmologies

Creationist cosmologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've tried to get this article deleted a number of times to no avail. I still cannot for the life of me figure out how it is not a WP:POVFORK of cosmology. Can someone explain? Are there any WP:FRIND sources that discuss the topic as a topic? jps (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't want to delete valid content just because it is coverage of an obnoxiously nonsensical subject. Sadly, this nonsense has much more than a fringe following in the USA so, whatever arguments might be advanced against it, just calling it "fringe" is not going to see the back of it (and oh how I wish that were not the case!). It may be a discredit to the US Education system, as well as the whole human race, but it is a regionally notable one and we have to cover it without overdoing it.
Cosmology links to several articles about religious and ancient cosmologies (e.g. Hindu cosmology) and I see no reason why this should not be one of those except that I do have one concern:
Are we really sure that Creationist cosmologies and Biblical cosmology are separate subjects? If not, then they should be merged. After all, all this Creationism is nothing more than the Biblical Judeo-Christian creation myth dressed up in a few new words to make it look newer and, sometimes, less religious than it really is.
I have only skimmed the Creationist cosmologies article but one thing that it does need checking over for is an overly American perspective. Outside of the USA, Christians are much less likely to take this stuff seriously. Certainly it has very little traction here in the UK and neither the Catholic nor the Anglican Church want to touch it with a stick. Failing to mention that risks making a lot of Christians look stupid unfairly. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It is a largely American perspective and a wholly Christian one. There are creationist cosmologies that are not Christian, for example the ancient Greek Theogony. Roches (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It also seems to me that Creationist cosmologies and Biblical cosmology should be merged (keeping the latter name). —PaleoNeonate - 20:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
We also have Dating creation, although that one is more general, not only Judeo-Christian. —PaleoNeonate - 20:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
And we have Religious cosmology... —PaleoNeonate - 20:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
If articles are to be merged, care must be taken to distinguish cosmography (the structure of the universe) from cosmogony, the origin of the universe. Creationist cosmologies is about the origin of the universe, and (more or less) adopts scientific cosmology to describe the universe as it is today. Biblical cosmology is primarily about the structure of the universe (a flat earth in an ocean with the stars fixed to a firmament). Religious cosmology is a mixture of both origin and structure. Roches (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Squirrels

Apparently, according to multiple people currently editing the article, squirrels are capable of sponsoring cyberterrorism. I'm not entirely sure how, considering they can neither talk nor use computers. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • It's not actually a fringe theory... the article discusses a real life topic - a well documented phenomenon (squirrels causing massive damage to power grids and cyber systems). The problem is with the article title. We copy the poor attempt at humor that the sources have fallen prey to when trying to give the phenomenon a name. I think this could be resolved by renaming our article with a more serious descriptive title. Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It's slow-news-day fluff. Ironically the various articles on squirrels say nothing about it even though it has been a problem since the first days of overhead power lines. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar. A catchy news hook ("the most dangerous cyberterrorists are squirrels!") for a well-documented topic (squirrel damage to exterior power/data lines and cables) has been wrongly used as a WP article title. Easy fix. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This is... a very impressive AfD indeed. (They just hate our way of life.) TimothyJosephWood 17:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail at the moment, so I must ask: are these terrorists African or European squirrels? Truly one of the stranger articles I've read, and truly shocking that it actually does not appear to be a hoax, since it has numerous references. I would suggest redirecting to Squirrel induced power outage or the like. Rodents can chew through wires, but there are no radicalizing leader-squirrels sending nuts to young would-be martyrs. Or are there? Roches (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
In the end this appears to be more of a clickbate than fringe issue.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a mess. See the latest edit [26] which doesn't seem to match the source.[27] Most edits are by bran new editors or IPs. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories

See recent edits. The new paragraphs would need independent sources wouldn't it? And Wirth is no scholar. The other changes look plain POV. I don't want to edit it on my iPad. Doug Weller talk 05:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Yates

Fringe non-notable author making wild claims about Cherokees originally speaking Greek, etc. 2nd AfD although that isn't showing up, must fix that later today! Doug Weller talk 08:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald yates

Already PROD'ed, I suspect this is fringe; subject promotes theory that Cherokee have European or African ancestry, and that geneticists are all wrong. Thoughts? Mduvekot (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Not the first time either. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Panther-Yates. Agricolae (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought that name sounded familiar. Heiro 03:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald N. Yates's works combine his knowledge of genealogy, DNA research, history, human migrations, and languages into his books and other writings about people's heritage, especially the Cherokee. I have been interested in ancient cultures all my life and read books on such research and, in recent years, of the additions and clarifications DNA science is bringing to human history.

As many academic historians established their careers before DNA research became available, they may not have availed themselves of its science in their research. Some have or will in the future if they assume an interdisciplinary approach.

I am new to Wikipedia and have to study the criteria for "fringe" and the line between fringe but notable and fringe non-notable. However, I want to add to the Yates page a list of his works through established publishers...as soon as I figure out how to add sections. Nightdesk (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nightdesk:, as you know he has no qualifications in any scientific firlfpd, let alone genetics. We are a mainstream encyclopaedia and for articles dealing with genetic relationships we expect peer reviewed sources. He is arguing for relationships that no mainstream academic in the relevant fields support.Doug Weller talk 20:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, again, for the direction and clarification. I'll continue learning about sourcing and such.Nightdesk (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Omphalos hypothesis

A statement that this is pseudoscience has been removed from this article. Is it? Doug Weller talk 20:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that the purpose is to sidestep evidence, sorta, but by itself, and as presented in the current version, it's a bit old for the epithet... Its use by modern creationists is definitely pseudoscientific, however, and since that's probably the only reason anyone is still talking about this hypothesis, I'd present it as that first in the lead, and the origin of the term second. The current version gives the impression that it's a rich intellectual tradition to which modern creationists are but a footnote. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Gamall Wednesday Ida: Thanks. Unfortunately I know far too little about this to write that. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm hardly a fount of knowledge on St. Ephrem the Syrian either :-). Should the debate about "pseudoscientific argument" flare up, I'd suggest replacing that by "young-earth creationist argument" and calling it a day. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Baraminology -> created kind

Created kind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been recreated due to the proposal that it is more general than baraminology. I support this move, but editors are probably needed to make sure it's done with the fringe guidelines in mind.

jps (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Allah as Moon-god

Although someone removed the fringe category, this is clearly fringe. I just cleared up some vandalism from an earlier editor and some changes/deletions by User:Spem Reduxit, who is editing again using some poor sources, including Wikipedia, labelling someone a 'Muslim apologist' which I don't think helps our readers in this instance, and various other changes some of which are ok, others not (eg changing Christian fundamentalists to Christian followers which makes little sense). Doug Weller talk 12:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not "using some poor sources", I am only editing old material. The "poor sources" are not mine. Mr Weller ought to retract his slur. Spem Reduxit (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I am unsure of the wisdom of labelling as "Christian fundamentalist" writers like Parshall, per WP:BLP. Spem Reduxit (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
You added Real History World Wide which says "The British, with the "Modern" Germans, were the originators of revisionist history. It was they who first began to write Blacks out of history after the “Race/Religious Wars" of the late medieval. Now look, the British will soon start teaching their children the truth: that Blacks were the original people of Britain." That's more than a poor source, it's a terrible source. You also added <ref>{{Cite journal|date=2017-06-06|title=Zoroaster|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoroaster&oldid=784130212|journal=Wikipedia|language=en}}</ref> - we don't use our articles as sources. You've titled a section "Christian followers" - they don't follow a moon god called Allah, so why call them followers? And why have someone you call a Muslim apologist (what does that mean to you?) in a section of Christian followers? Doug Weller talk 18:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure I made that change? It doesn't look like one of mine, and the source material doesn't look familiar to me. Of course, I may be mistaken. Could you please confirm with a link to the WP diff summary? The "Christian followers" might better have been entitled "Followers of Christ"; I leave that up to your discretion. The "Muslim apologist" label may or may not be unfortunate. I noted from her wiki page that the writer was on some form of Muslim community and media-issues group and that seemed to me important. Maybe "Muslima" or "The former President of the Muslim Canadian Congress sees these views as an extension of longstanding Christian Evangelical claims that Muhamamad was an impostor and deceiver." In my opinion the pull-quote immediately following that is irrelevant and ready for deletion. Spem Reduxit (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I must apologise for that change as it was made by an IP in the middle of a series of changes you made, and I was looking at the combined changes. I've removed it now I know it wasn't yours, I didn't want to edit war. As you may have noticed I had to go through the article to fix a lot of vandalism by Vanillapomegranate (who I have belatedly blocked and which I missed when it occurred) and which you also missed. The article was in a mess.
We only use the term "Christ" in quotes or in cases where it is clearly the correct term, as it is a title and not a name and signifies that Jesus is considered divine by those using it. "Christian proponents" would be better. We don't need to describe Hassan as people can read her article, and I think the quote is valuable as it clarifies the current situation and shows that this is not just a few cranks but a broader spectrum of Christianity as represented by the Christian Coalition of America. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. The page was in a mess, thank you for your valuable contributions. "Christian proponents" it is. As for the other issue, it can best be taken to the article talk page, yes? Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Brains in jars

Despite being a big fan of The Man with Two Brains, I tried PROD'ing this, but an IP objected. I don't think this is serious ... anybody know more? Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's legit. I saw it in Young Frankenstein. -Location (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep -- whose brain? Abby's! Abby ... normal. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic, this method (of using chemicals to change the structure of brain tissue to non-perishable material in the hope that the process can one day be reversed) is technically intended to dispense with the jars and avoid all that preserving-fluid messiness. It's certainly a genuine field of study on the transhumanist lunatic fringe (who use the term "brain plastination", not "chemical brain preservation", if you're hunting for sources), although I very much doubt it needs be be anything more than a footnote at cryonics. ‑ Iridescent 20:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I suspect an AFD may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
They saved Albert Einstein's brain. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The concept could be part of Histopathology or Fixation (histology). But the present article frames brain preservation "with the intent of future revival", which is definitely fringe fantasy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Plus, none of the sources discuss tissue preservation for the purpose of revival or rejuvenation, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical brain preservation - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

abovetopsecret.com

See discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#abovetopsecret.com if you have any feedback for this source. Looks dodgy to me. -Location (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination).

Input of editors expert in WP:FRINGEBLP would be welcome. Outside opinions needed. jps (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Alpha-gal allergy

This is the latest bit of medical alarmism to wash over my Facebook feed. I don't doubt that this is a real condition, but given the huge range of the lone star tick, this is going to need to be screened to ensure the risk isn't being exaggerated. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Optography

Came here via the ref desk. The article on optography does not claim anything that is outright wrong, but it certainly presents the stuff as a legit scientific theory, when the whole "scientific basis" for it is a one-man operation. Zero recent literature on the subject (you can also try in German).

I would say a serious trim is in order: and the article should be presented first and foremost as a popular belief of the 19th century. Kühne's experiments on rabbits seem legit, but the human part sounds incredibly fishy (the original picture was lost, it was made after the public got excited about the possibility). TigraanClick here to contact me 11:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I would agree. The statement in the lede that "there is a scientific basis behind the idea" is grossly misleading. While it appears to be true that one scientist once considered it worthy of investigation, that doesn't constitute a "scientific basis" by any stretch; no such "basis" was ever demonstrated. It's just one of those numerous ideas that seemed worth looking into, but turned out to be useless, except as a fictional murder mystery device. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with DoctorJoeE. The idea here is that Kühne was successfully able to rapidly fix rhodopsin and the pattern of it on the retina/macula/fovea would reveal an image corresponding to what the eye saw (i.e. the optograph). The article somewhat reflects most of the sources on the subject in that it discusses the second part (i.e. results), but simply assumes the first (i.e. methods). I think in that assumption is where optography starts to cross the line from science to pseudoscience. I don't doubt that Kühne was attempting to do something based in science, but the article needs to properly address what he claims to have done and found. For example, I don't buy that his "most successful optogram" is what he said it is just because he said it is what it is. The questions are just too numerous for an 1877 experiment that should easily be duplicated in modern times. -Location (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Three random comments.
  • Even taken at face value, it sounds like his experiment on human eyeballs was a failure. He produced an image that didn't correspond with what the prisoner saw. (The fact that some image was produced isn't surprising or notable, I mean, it's got to look like something.) The article reads like the experiment was at least a partial success.
  • This site is not at all a reliable source, but it may hint at some sources. Especially Dr. Alexandridis's followup work. Tracking it down will involve looking through some pre-digital german-language sources, which I'm not able to do.
  • On its face, the idea that you can blast a lot of sunlight through a lens and onto a surface and it'll leave a faint mark is pretty straightforward. It'd be more surprising if you couldn't make it work. (It doesn't have to be a retina, you could stick a piece of colored paper there and get the same result.) It's a far cry from Optography as it's usually understood, which involves images captured at normal light levels, and somehow being frozen at the instant of death.(With an inexplicably high shutter speed.) This distinction should probably be stressed if possible, since it's huge. Right now the article leaves you with the idea that it's just a technical problem and that any day now a more sensitive technique might make it work like it does in Victorian crime novels. ApLundell (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The result is also not unexpected on a specific biochemical level, just uselessly limited in its application. Rhodopsin gets photobleached as part of its mechanism, and takes 10s of minutes to regenerate. However, given that rhodopsin is almost completely photobleached in normal light (it is your pigment for dusk and dark), rarely are you going to have forensic circumstances like those the rabbit underwent, kept fully in the dark to allow full rhodopsin generation, then exposed to a static light pattern and immediately offed. Color (normal light) vision uses different pigments that regenerate 200X faster (as an example the rate-limiting step for rhodopsin, (Rh)Meta II -> scotopsin, takes 1 hr; the color (normal-light) equivalent (cone)Meta II -> photopsin takes 3 sec and is no longer the rate limiting step). In other words, by the time a murder victim's metabolic processes fully cease, any photobleaching would have already have been largely reversed - the murder would have to have been by dropping in liquid nitrogen in order to freeze the eyes quickly enough to catch the color pigments before they regenerate. Thus there is every reason for the contrived rabbit experiment to have worked, and every expectation the human study would have failed. The problem is to get this duality across without original research/synthesis. Agricolae (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Land art

To be honest, I'm not certain if this is the best forum, but given the nature of the issue, this is closest that I can determine. There is a content dispute at Land art. One editor OhioOakTree attempted to expand the scope of this article. To be as brief as possible, "land art" or "earth art" is a movement that appeared in the 1960s and '70s, mostly in the US and UK but a few other places. That's what the article is about. OhioOakTree insists that there is a connection of this 20th century art with prehistoric earth markings such as the Nazca lines and therefore those should also be called "earth art" in the context of this article. He provides no sources for this expanded notion of land/earth art; those that he did offer didn't say what he claims they said. Three editors, myself Bus stop and Modernist have attempted to discuss this on the talk page. OhioOakTree, through that account plus through several IP addresses (all Ohio IPs) has continuously re-added the disputed information and added a globalize template, claiming that the article doesn't address world-wide trends, which is false. There is discussion of late 20th century land/earth art from South America and a few other places.

This falls under WP:FRINGE as it is at best a fringe idea that there is any link between prehistoric land markings of unknown purpose and 20th century land art. It was suggested by Modernist and attempted by Bus stop to create a short mention of there being superficial appearances to earlier work but that there is no scholarly support for that (and common sense would appky as well; prehistoric humans were not making "earth art" in the manner of Robert Smithson of Spiral Jetty fame). Anything more would be WP:UNDUE. So we have attempted compromise and have discussed it a great deal, but OhioOakTree continues to be disruptive. Any other editors weighing in would be appreciated. freshacconci (✉) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct - this probably isn't the best place to discuss it, but it seems to me there are two "directions" to the idea of a link between C20 land art and Ancient sites. One direction is that ancient people were creating "land art" - which is possible but not at all proven (and in some cases, probably unprovable). It's too extreme, however, to insist there's absolutely no possibility that some ancient sites were created because they looked nice (for want of a better oversimplification of the purposes of Art).
The other direction is that modern land art derives at least some of its inspiration from the forms, materiality, appearance, etc, of ancient sites. That seems unarguably true to me. I'm sure I've read or seen interviews with David Nash, or Andy Goldsworthy, or Richard Long, for instance, in which they have been quite explicit about the link. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd adduce this though, as evidence that an academic anthropologist considers such things as the Nazca Lines - and British hill figures - to be "land art" https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kZwUAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360&dq=nazca+lines+land+art&source=bl&ots=VuxTayBCDS&sig=ORhvTXlNXeURJ-4YNw2GeePejf0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyvb2B09LUAhUMKsAKHZzJAA04HhDoAQgpMAE#v=onepage&q=nazca%20lines%20land%20art&f=false Ghughesarch (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to add that common sense tells us that those ancient earth forms and ancient sites probably have influenced and impacted those contemporary artists engaged with what is called Land art. I recently re-read Michael Kimmelman's long article Arts Last, Lonely Cowboy about Michael Heizer [28] and Heizer most clearly has the ancient pyramids in mind. However a brief mention in the Land art article is sufficient; and the shenanigans by Ohio and his ip crowd needs to stop...Modernist (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for the Nazca lines to be considered a type of land art (see references below), and it is not unreasonable to add one sentence with an image in the article to make mention of that, in particular to resolve the American-European bias of the article.
http://www.onagocag.com/nazca.html The Nazca installation "...is the work of artists".
http://www.discover-peru.org/the-nazca-lines/ "The Nazca people were the creators of the art".
Rebecca R. Stone, Art of the Andes: From Chavín to Inca (World of Art), 3rd Edition, 2012; ISBN: 9780500204153.
The reference shown by Ghughesarch also supports this view, which reads in part (page 361):"...land art...also known as earth art or earthworks...refers to large scale manipulations of the natural landscape to create visually appealing works. The Nazca lines created on the desert floor in highland Peru are the most famous example of prehistoric land art;..."OhioOakTree (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
You say "It is not uncommon for the Nazca lines to be considered a type of land art". I have a book called "ArtSpeak: A Guide to Contemporary Ideas, Movements, and Buzzwords". In the section called "Earth art" there is no mention of the Nazca Lines. That book is about contemporary art. We commonly disambiguate terms based on subject matter. And we should prefer sources on topic. The subject of the article is contemporary art. Other sources that I've seen hailing from the contemporary art realm briefly mention Nazca Lines. Based on that I have briefly mentioned Nazca Lines in our article. But for some inexplicable reason you want to give greater weight to Nazca Lines than is found in most sources on contemporary art. It is an art movement and it is peculiar to the 20th century. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Nazca Lines are not considered Land art (any more than the Carnac stones). The only mention of such in the Nazca article is a template at the bottom of the page. Archaeologists, ethnologists, and anthropologists that have studied these lines and figures to determine their purpose have only hypotheses. To consider these lines and figures as Land art would be identical to considering Cycladic art as Contemporary art, which it is not. Land art began in the 1960's. Coldcreation (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The Oxford online dictionary calls art " The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." No one knows why the Nazca lines were created, however they may view them today, but I doubt very much that they were created primarily for their aesthetic value and any such claim is a modern day interpretation. It's possible they were created for their emotional power I guess, but we simply do not know. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Silly people - they were alien runways! All seriousness aside, I'm amazed that the Nazca article makes no mention of von Daniken's long-discredited (by everyone except von Daniken) alien runway theory, since that's how they came to the attention of most non-archaeologists in the first place. (The von Daniken article does mention them, of course.) As to whether they were created for aesthetic purposes, why else would they have made them look like humans or animals? But yes, without a time machine it's all speculation. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Chronic Lyme disease

We are having a dispute about an alternative name for "chronic lyme" and more voices would be useful. The discussion is at Talk:Chronic_Lyme_disease#Synonyms Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Was this page properly WP:CFORKed from Lyme disease? jps (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Frederic W. H. Myers

User "psychicbias" who is sock-puppeting on an IP and another account adding massive fringe material to the article, he also claims on the talk-page he has refuted Myers skeptics. There is a current sock-puppet investigation for psychicbias but the article may need extra eyes. 82.132.222.31 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Pallathadka Keshava Bhat, Abhas Mitra, and Eternally collapsing object

Lots of egregiously fringe-promotional/unreliable cites and text in all three articles. Anyone up to take a weed-whacker to these? Neutralitytalk 04:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Eternally collapsing object should be merged into Abhas Mitra, seeing as he's literally the only one pushing it. I also trimmed the Abhas article and made some quality-of-life corrections, but I'd honestly recommend some dynomite as the best solution. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Mitra, it seems, has a point. He does get the prize for proposing the MECO before the MECO proposers. jps (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 23#Category:Anti-aging substances

There is discussion of how much this represents questionable claims, which from what I see, looking at the category members, is right up our alley. Mangoe (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Orb (paranormal)

Orb (paranormal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this a notable thing? IMO, it's a WP:POVFORK of Orb (optics) heavily sourced to WP:FRINGE sources, but what do I know. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a thing, although I think that it would be best merged in the Ghost article (if there's anything reliably sourced enough to keep, I see that various references are not reliable sources). —PaleoNeonate - 13:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree, because the usual explanation is that orbs represent dead people; but there are no plausible hypotheses (or reliable sources) that describe the mechanism by which a person who dies will become a hovering ball of light that appears on film but is invisible to the eye. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems like that entire article could be replaced by adding a single sentence to Orb (optics).
A closely related artifact is Rod (optics), whose article is struggling to remain non-fringe. ApLundell (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The rod article needs to be merged (not sure where, exactly), particularly after multiple high-speed filming experiments have shown that they are insects (usually moths) creating video artifacts when filmed at conventional speeds. The tipoff -- just as with orbs -- was that they were never seen on direct observation, only on film; so perhaps the Orb article is the proper merge destination. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Orb (paranormal) has been merged to Orb (optics). I have tried to clean up WP:UNDUE weight of ghost hunters opinions and many citations to unreliable ghost websites, youtube clips of ghost hunters, etc. but have been reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. More space is spent on crappy nonsense sources that than on the actual phenomenon. The merge should result in a few sentences, at most, covering the paranormal. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Besides being poorly sourced, that section positioned this well known photographic artifact as an equally valid debate between the beliefs of "ghost hunters" and "skeptics". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: It did go through AfD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (paranormal), although at the time of my above comment I was not aware of this. The result was to merge into the mainstream Orb (optics) article, where the paranormal view can probably only have limited weight. In the little that currently remains, there still are two sources which appear to be useless (I have tagged those as dead links, because the original content changed since the original use of those sources and I could not access the old content using archive.org to rescue them). —PaleoNeonate - 04:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Andy is actually aware of the AfD, given messages he left on talk pages. His take on the result seems to be to equate "merge" and "indiscriminate dump of complete existing content into the target article", despite that hardly being the takeaway from the AfD discussion, imo. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 05:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Theory of the Month

This month we have two!

http://www.bodahub.com/does-finland-exist-conspiracy-theory/

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/ufo-blogger-spots-trump-on-mars

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have met plenty of people who claim to be from Finland. I have never met any non-Finn who has visited Finland. Clearly this is a wide-ranging conspiracy. (Handy tip though, do NOT attempt to have a drinking competition with the Finns!) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought I had been to Finland but then I realised that's exactly what I want me to think. Mramoeba (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Been there a half-dozen times. Maybe it was a hologram, but I'm pretty sure it was a country. Estonia, OTOH, is just northern Latvia, methinks... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Dammit, I`ve always liked The Tales of Ensign Stål. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Mac Tonnies

Mac Tonnies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this worthy of a biography? The subject strikes me as having borderline notability, but I'd like to get some outside opinions on the matter.

jps (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems borderline to me as well. His books don't seem that popular. I wouldn't nominate for deletion, though; it's "borderline", not "clearly not notable". — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 11:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why people cite articles to Coast to Coast AM as if it's the ne plus ultra of credibility. There are more objective sources available that put Tonnies right up there with George Adamski in terms of significance to the history of fringiness. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I imagine you're being rhetorical with your question here, but I think the answer is clearly that this is an occupational hazard of Wikipedia editing. Coast to Coast AM gets far more consumers of "information" than those stodgy things like "books" or "articles". As we accept all comers, many of those coming here will be doing so via the Coast to Coast road. jps (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Lionel Fanthorpe

Fringe writer with some pretty promotional unsourced stuff. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to say (given the fact he was moderately well known) it seems odd there are not more RS. It needs workSlatersteven (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Ghost Club

Tangentially related to Lionel, it's rather disgraceful that the revived Ghost Club is presented as if it was just a continuation of the original, seeing as the original was rather objective/skeptic and the newer versions that have cropped up are all fringe-pushers themselves.

Suggestions? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well given it's membership I am not sure there is an issue here. But it sure needs more sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Library angel

Library angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Almost at hoax level. Delete?

jps (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure it is a hoax, but it certainly seems to be not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a redirect to Post hoc ergo propter hoc or other equivalent fallacy of false attribution could be in order... but if the name is non-notable there's probably no point to keep it... —PaleoNeonate - 15:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
All I found was one tongue in cheek reference.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Prodded. we will see. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Well I thought my reason was valid, obviously. Could somebody explain why we need the article? -Roxy the dog. bark 21:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The only source the article had was this [29], which is a psychiatry paper about coincidence that smells like woo but fails to mention either Koestler or the supposed "library angel" phenomenon. Article is currently sourceless. A Google search produces a few hits, none of them I've seen look reliable. Geogene (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So it was de-PRODded, I checked the CSD criteria and am not sure if one fits exactly. It seems to me that if not deleted this could be merged into Arthur Koestler, but it may not even be notable enough to merit mention there (in which case even less to have an article)... AfD for a one-sentence article seems like a waste, but why not... if noone does it until I can get to it, I might nominate it soon. —PaleoNeonate - 22:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a hoax. This is more like Maxwell's demon.--Auric talk 23:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not enough notability in reliable sources for a stand alone article. It's now at Arthur_Koestler#The_Paranormal where it should be. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks LuckyLouie, I doubt your merge will be contested. —PaleoNeonate - 23:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
It was...by the same user who dePRODded the article. I contested back. jps (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I have asked them to explain why they think the article should be kept.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
... and I have also asked. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
When I noticed the PROD removal I added a link to this discussion on the article/redirect's talk page, and more recently I added a merged-to tag. We'll see if that's enough, along with your notices... When I saw the contester's argument I had the impression that they were not aware that it was a merge instead of only a redirect and that some discussion did take place about it. —PaleoNeonate - 10:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have disengaged from the deprodders Talk. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Blood irradiation therapy

Does this article pass the smell test? I notice the phrase "This issue is subject to skepticism, but only in the part of the researchers, who are not acquainted with scientific publications on the topic, the vast majority of which are in Russian", which seems a little defensive and not really the way we do things. I also notice that earlier versions of the article[30] are a lot more skeptical, with "Its effectiveness and utility as a treatment has been questioned" appearing in the lede. Artw (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw this and was about to make a smartarse comment about my personal need for gamma irradiated blood if I need any topping up at the vet, when I saw the following paragraph in the lead ... It is not related to the practice of gamma irradiation of blood in transfusion medicine.
That's me told. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Definitely needs some work. Any time an article claims, as this one does, that the only reason anyone takes a skeptical view of a procedure is when they haven't read all the literature (the old, 'if you disagree with me you don't know what you are talking about' argument), that is a big red flag in terms of NPOV. Agricolae (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Extracorporeal irradiation has been around for a long time - at least as long as I've been in practice - and has yet to demonstrate unequivocal safety/efficacy. Quackwatch labels it "questionable", which is being very kind, IMHO. Per Roxy's query, I'd say there's a moderate but unpleasant odor emanating from this one. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Jakuen

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

This article doesn't smell right to me...

Darklight Shadows 21:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD: Rhonda Patrick (2nd nom.)

This AfD needs more opinions, and since the subject may be wading in the water of fringe theories, I thought I'd post here. On her own site, FoundMyFitness.com, she describes herself thusly:

FoundMyFitness is Dr. Rhonda Patrick. Rhonda has extensive research experience in the fields of aging, cancer, nutrition. the platform by which Rhonda shares her insight from years of academic study and research on the best ways to increase healthspan.

In the AfD there appears to be highly divergent views on what constitutes passing NACADEMIC and BASIC. Delta13C (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Lynne Kelly (science writer)

Lynne Kelly (science writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks like a curate's egg, some good, some bad. Skeptic but looks fringe for archaeology. Very clearly a promotional article from the start. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Tulli Papyrus

"The Tulli Papyrus is an oft-cited document of questionable origins that some have interpreted as evidence of ancient flying saucers." Someone has just added 10 cn tags, almost one per sentence, plus a refimprov tag - which seems a bad idea, it should be one or the other. Any takers? Doug Weller talk 12:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look good. Essentially, it's an anecdotal story by someone who said they once saw a papyrus that described an ancient UFO sighting, as described by a long lost issue of the Fortean Society magazine. The two or three seemingly reliable sources contained in the article are utilized as citations for some editor's WP:OR. A search reveals zero reliable sources that are independent of ufo believers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Found a couple reliable sources, but only enough to support a stub. Maybe best to merge it to Erich von Daniken, since he is the one most often associated with the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Even some ufologists doubt it [[31]], shame I am dubious about this as an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Useful source, nominal WP:PARITY, I added it in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Supermoons happen every 14 months!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full moon cycle (2nd nomination).

The article that goes into ridiculously loving detail as to why this is has been put up for deletion. There is definitely original research in there (though arguably mostly WP:CALC), but I'm curious as to whether there is some astrological fringe-y-ness that I may have missed in my once over, therefore posting here!

jps (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a modest effort to retrospectively link Fusion GPS (the opposition-research firm which was hired by both Democrats and Republicans prior to the 2016 US Election) with Rinat Akhmetshin(a Russian lawyer who allegedly met with Donald Trump Jr in summer of 2016). This seems to be a conspiracy theory born in the last 2 weeks. I've found some reliable sources that attest to the fact that Senator Chuck Grassley has made Justice Department complaint against the company, but no reliable, independent reporting that links the company with the Russian lawyer. I expect this to heat up very soon. --Salimfadhley (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Canada's Stonehenge

Canada's Stonehenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - looks like either WP:ARTSPAM or WP:BOOKSPAM (love the bit of text " says Freeman, a laughing, vigorous 78" which is copied from the source.[33] The site is actually known as the "Majorville medicine wheel" or "Majorville cairn"[34] although fringe sources refer to as the Alberta Sun Temple. We need an article for the medicine wheel. No we don't, while writing this I've done a stub for Majorville Cairn and Medicine Wheel site. The book article is notable but clearly pov. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you could probably nominate this one for an AfD. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Squatty Potty

Uncritically relayed the health claims of the company. I've pecked at this a bit but there seems to be a lack of mainstream coverage with the exception of something from Skeptoid.[35] Is Skeptoid useful per WP:PARITY I wonder. Alexbrn (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There definitely is mainstream coverage of this product: E.g. [36], [37]. There are some good critical tidbits to be found in those pieces. jps (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The coverage, such as it is, appears to be mostly amusement - at least to my eye. The article itself smacks of WP:PROMO, and I'm not convinced it needs to be in the encyclopedia. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Nearly a decade ago, now, I had a conversation with User:DGG about what the biggest pitfall with Wikipedia was and he said that the problem was it didn't fork -- which is to say that serious scientific/math articles go in one project, popular culture in another, etc. I think no serious desk reference would ever consider the Squatty Potty encyclopedic, but at Wikipedia there is a community of editors who writes articles on just about every product that they see in the media. This is especially true in areas such as video games, media, and (most notoriously) Pokemon, but it necessarily causes consternation when there are claims that we as WP:FTN regulars need to monitor. My feeling is that we as WP:FTN regulars do our best to delete articles where WP:FRINGE is most clearly violated (or where, perhaps, other WP:N problems are seen) and make sure that uncritical WP:REDFLAGs don't go uncritically included in articlespace. Apart from that, I don't think we can get Wikipedia to be reimagined to avoid eye-rolling issues like this one. jps (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to note, the article is largely the result of WP:PAID editing too. IME it's no good trying to get things deleted if there's so much as a sniff of coverage, no matter how shit the quality. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
To the list of video games, media, and (most notoriously) Pokemon, provided by jps, I would like to add 'Wrestling in the USA'. Those guys have edit wars. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not think it is a fringe or even an unusual health claim that many people find it easier to defecate in a squatting position. I've noticed toilets of different heights. and a variety of devices. The problem here is different: this is a pure advertisement, and I've tagged it accordingly.
As for forking, what I suggested was a "Wikipedia2," which included all the contents of our familiar WP, and in addition content that did not require WP:N but only WP:V and NPOV, For some purposes I think people would use one, for some purposes the other. It could of course be said that Wikia does fairly well at this--and even that the improved state of Google as compared to ten years ago also meets the need. The advantage of this at the current time would be moving out 1/4 of our content, but the disadvantage would be using the Wikipedia name for it, which would dilute our reputation. And if we used a different name, COI people would still want to be in the regular WP.
But I do not think it correct to say for even wrestling, let alone products, that we accept everything. About half the articles on commercial products end up deleted, as do a substantial number of wrestling articles. Even many of the Pokemon articles that were here 10 years ago have been since merged. If what we have here bothers you, you need to look more often at the New Pages feed and see what gets submitted, or participate as an OTRS volunteer, and see the stuff that people ask to have included. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it should, at best, just be merged into squat toilet -- MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 14:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Flying ointment

Not sure if this is the best forum, but there seems to be quite a bit of OR regarding this article about a witchcraft-related subject going on. I've been poking through adding tags and cleaning things up, but there's quite a few problems. A lot of it is MOS type stuff, but I'm sure some regulars here could help with that, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Theory of The Month: Morse Code on Mars

http://www.disclose.tv/news/morse_code_on_mars_photos_showing_a_series_of_strange_patterns/132976

"...just a story conjured up by NASA to divert our attention from the truth... From the very start we are taught (brainwashed) that there is a molten core in the centre of earth, but the reality could be something else that NASA or the concerned authorities do not want us to know as it will shake our belief in God and religion and there will be an uprising which certain powers would not like." --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Guy, but I got there ahead of you. Dr. K. 04:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
NEE NED ZB 6TNN DEIBEDH SIEFI EBEEE SSIEI ESEE SEEE!! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
There you are. Not difficult to speak Martian, is it? Dr. K. 05:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a cookbook! - Nunh-huh 05:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course! Dr. K. 06:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Klaatu barada nikto - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a melody. - Location (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
One thing I know for sure. After this, we can safely close this noticeboard. Any other fringe theory will look plausible by comparison. Dr. K. 17:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Even more than this gem I came across the other day? (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that this is a parody, but Poe's Law is hard to shake). jps (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol. I know, fringe theories is a pretty vast field. Perhaps, there's still work to be done here after all. Keep up the good work jps. Nice talking to you after such a long time. :) Dr. K. 18:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Bradley Ayers, revisted

Bradley Ayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am acting on an earlier discussion in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Bradley Ayers in which I received a recommendation from A13ean and Salimfadhley that this should go to Afd. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Ayers if you wish to provide additional feedback. -Location (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Predatory Journals Hit By ‘Star Wars’ Sting

The review article in question makes novel use of our Mitochondrion article.[38] Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Now, just wait for some fringe proponent to use that as an excuse to argue for days on end that WP is peer-reviewed, so they must be able to cite WP pages to support their POV push. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy

Is this really a "controversy" that is documented in pertinent RS? Much of the sourcing seems to be synthesizing the topic from sources that do not discuss any such "controversy". (Also posted to WT:MED). Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Fringe mathematical theory?

In my opinion, Talk:0.999...#Request for comment: Which version neutrally summarizes the cited sources with appropriate weight? is a blatant attempt to give the fringe theory that 0.999… does not equal 1 undue weight. I would appreciate more eyes on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to the assertion here, it is not a "blatant attempt to give the fringe theory ... undue weight". Instead, it is an attempt to point out that the first two "proofs" fall well short of being mathematically valid demonstrations of the fact. The actual proof that requires using the completeness property of the real number system, and cannot simply be proven by facile algebraic manipulation. Furthermore, this is precisely the context in which these proofs are discussed in reliable sources. Obviously, more eyes would be appreciated. But this request seems prejudicial, and completely misstates the intent of the supposed "blatant attempt". Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Sławomir Biały is unquestionably wrong in this case. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Instead, it is an attempt to point out that the first two "proofs" fall well short of being mathematically valid demonstrations of the fact. If they are not rigorous, please show how they are not (I have, in the past, been presented with exactly those by qualified mathematicians and told in no uncertain terms that they are indeed proofs in the most formal sense). I have read the section and I do not see where you have presented any conditions under which an equation formed from the stated proofs could be shown to be false. Neither the discussion at talk nor the section cites any sources, so I cannot understand why you are making statements about what "the sources" say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Let me just preface this by saying that "the real numbers 0.999... and 1 are equal" is unquestionably true, and the idea that I am intending to promote a fringe theory is frankly laughable. Part of your post answers itself: a discussion that cites no sources is problematic for other reasons. But there are sources cited in footnote 1 of the Discussion section. They are easy to miss, and indeed the whole section itself is a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV for this reason. I'll remind you that contentious material is required to be supported by direct citations under policy. In any case, my proposed edit actually does include citations to the sources on which the section under discussion is actually based (see the statement of the RfC, where the edit includes sources for every statement (I use Harvard references)). It includes direct quotations to the sources, and overall summarizes what those sources have to say, contrary to the status quo revision. Regarding the validity of the proofs, I have explained in great detail on the talk page the sense in which these algebraic proofs are valid and the sense in which they are not valid. The concluding paragraph of that summary states: "Accordingly, all of these algebraic proofs are actually perfectly valid in the s-interpretation, but are subtly fallacious in the d-interpretation. To be sure, the s-interpretation is the one that is standard in mathematics, so indeed the proofs are not quite wrong. But they are deceptive, because they have the great potential to mislead the reader into thinking that we have used a property that d lacks (homomorphismhood), when the argument promptly establishes that the opposite is true." So it's not quite a binary valid/invalid judgement; it's a question of what the proofs actually mean. The s-interpretation is the correct one (which is why professional mathematicians may say that it is a correct argument, but will also doubtless acknowledge the proof to be incomplete – as others do below – because the is a topological statement about the real number system that itself requires justification), but the d-interpretation is by far the one that is more common in those who have not studied real analysis at the undergraduate level (which includes most non-math majors), according to sources in the pedagogy literature (in particular Byers, but also Peressini and Peressini, who are less detailed). This is exacerbated by the failure of the article to define the notation "0.999..." properly until after the identity has been proven, and then only in a very implicit way that is easy to miss. (Yes, yes, we say it's a real number, but probably most of our readers will think they know what this means, but actually do not.) So the structure of the lead and first proofs has the effect of tricking the most likely readers of the article into believing a false proof. To give an analogy, I could write a correct statement that mathematicians would agree on, but using the word "triangle" to mean hyperbolic triangle: e.g., "There exists a triangle the sum of whose interior angles equals ". The proof that is understood by a reader without this context would then very likely be a false one, even if those that know the context understand a true proof. Furthermore, the falsity of that proof is a rather subtle thing to notice. Speaking from experience, more than half of all freshman mathematics errors are believing that something is a homomorphism when it isn't (e.g., .) So not only do readers now apparently believe a false proof, but one of the standard errors they are likely to make elsewhere has inadvertently been reinforced. Furthermore, they rail against the wrongness of their interpretation of the equation , because they do not realize that there is a difference between a real number and its decimal representation. And they are right to be skeptical! Indeed, under their interpretation of things, the identity is a false one, because they do not know what a real number is. That urgently needs to be corrected. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • These are indeed non-rigorous proofs, and thus strictly non-proofs, as there is, for instance, no rule in elementary maritmetics that 9*0.111... = 0.999... or 9+0.999... = 9.999... or 10*0.999... = 9.999... for the simple reason that 0.999... is—in that context—not a well defined number. The real numbers must have been introduced for that. When the integers and the rationals are introduced and available, we can indeed write 9*0.111 = 0.999 and 9+0.999 = 9.999 and 10*0.999 = 9.990—all without the dots. Just read 0.999...#Algebraic proofs. It says: "However, these proofs are incomplete or not rigorous, as they do not include a clear definition of 0.999… and of the operations that are allowed on such a notation." A source is given in 0.999...#Discussion and referred to in the talk page discussion. No fringe is being pushed here. On the contrary: precision is being pushed. This incident should be closed. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
After an edit conflict, I contest the claims that
  • "0.999… does not equal 1" is a fringe theory within several number systems. It is just simply false within the reals and their usual decimal representation, but holds within these systems. Mentioning this fact might even ease the acceptance of equality within the reals.
  • being "unquestionably wrong" could ever be a valid argument within this context
  • the unimproved versions of what are called "Algebraic proofs" in the challenged wording resemble in even the slightest way even a sketch of a formal proof. To the contrary, the given statements look like intentionally hiding the inherent difficulties in establishing the equality within the real numbers
  • there are "no cited sources".
For the purpose of confirming my claims, please, have a look here. Purgy (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone in the RFC discussion is disputing that 0.999... = 1 in the real numbers or that a rigorous mathematical proof of this fact exists. The discussion is around whether and to what extent the non-rigorous proofs/motivations/explanations/arguments/demonstrations in the "Algebraic proofs" section of the article should be qualified. Not an FTN issue in my opinion. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'm seeing the problem here. First off, I think those supporting the proposed change should be aware that there is a fringe group of people who contend that 0.999... != 1. I've encountered them before, in real life and on the internet, and they are frighteningly passionate about their belief (as many fringe proponents are).It's not clear, based on the arguments here, that you all are aware of that. Hell, it's the reason we have the article.
The second thing is that those of you supporting the proposed change should consider taking a step back and trying to read it from the perspective of the average person. The proposed change really does look like it's trying to undermine the proofs, even though that's not its intention. Many, many people will stop reading after the first sentence of an explanatory paragraph, if they think that sentence sums it up. The proposal truly, honestly looks like it's working to undermine the proofs shown above it. It looks like a POV push.
Sławomir Biały, your argument about credentials does nothing to help, as you critique what you believe to be the credentials of others without offering any evidence (or even claims, as of my last reading) of your own. That is not an argumentation tactic that suggests that you have any credentials, indeed quite the opposite. It suggests that you're unwilling to lie directly about having credentials out of a fear of being called out, but simultaneously unwilling to concede the point that you lack any credentials. I'm not saying that you don't have any such credentials because I don't know, but I can tell you quite clearly that if I had to take a guess based only on your arguments there, it would be "Hell no". To be honest, I am a bit reluctant to say this because I have otherwise found you to be an excellent editor. I'm not critiquing you or your credentials, mind. Just the argument as you made it in that thread.
I strongly suggest you ignore the issue of credentials entirely and understand that the purpose of the article is to inform those who are, by definition, lacking mathematical credentials. Indeed, credentials could well be a hindrance for the editor attempting to write that or any other highly-technical article with a broad base of interest.
So my advice is to not be pedantic about it. The examples given are a shorthand for the actual proofs, which use the same basic logic described, but do so in a more rigorous way (to be fair, the experts who have shown me those proofs did include a caveat to that effect, though they were insistent that they are legitimate and formal proofs). Consider the proofs given as a brief summary of the more rigorous proofs, and treat it like that as you draft a new one. I accept without reservation that no-one is contenting that 0.999... != 1, but I also have to back up Guy completely; the proposed text looks like a fringe POV-push. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect MPants, the credentials issue has been kept alive by a single editor at the discussion page, who first raised the issue, and (until his latest comment) appears to continue to believe that it is relevant. I have told him to drop it, and so far he has. But since you now seem to demand an unambiguous statement: I have a PhD in mathematics from a major international research university and have held appointments at major universities as well, including a temporary appointment at any American Ivy League university. I have more than a decade of experience teaching calculus and mathematical analysis to undergraduates from diverse backgrounds. I would be more than happy to affirm this by OTRS if you really need to be convinced. Other editors, whose mathematical credentials are hopefully beyond question, have supported my revisions to the article. In any case, the credentials issue is not and should not be the focus of the discussion. The credentials issue is only relevant, however, because it is frustrating that so many editors lack the background to have a meaningful discussion in the first place (but seem to think that they do have that background). I suppose that it should be easy to predict that, if 99% of what I write is "math" (and thus not something that people read), the other 1% gets inappropriately cast as the substance of the discussion. But please, let's focus on the substance instead of shooting the messenger.
Yes, I am aware that there is a fringe group that believe very strongly that . I contend that whether our readers believe this is beside the point. They may either take our word for it (or rather, that of reliable sources) or not. That's already covered by WP:V. Belief isn't required; just verifiability. We aren't under any obligation to convince the reader of anything. Usually mathematics articles on Wikipedia do not even include proofs, those being easily found in the secondary literature. Furthermore, the fact itself is not even mathematically important!
The problem with the first two proofs in the article is not merely that they lack some formal details, but otherwise provide some intuition why the result should be true. Indeed, not only do the proofs lack formal detail, but they actually mislead their presumptive target audience. The sources Peresinni and Peresinni, and Byers, tell us that the sources provide no intuition for why the result is true. Byers says that even a student who is convinced by the algebraic proofs, but fails to grasp this underlying issue, fails to understand the equation at all. Indeed, the proofs are not merely lacking some formal details: a complete restructuring of the concept of "number" is required. What I see is the systematic efforts to minimize this in the article and its talk page, in the name of making what is a genuinely difficult concept "accessible" (by failing to explain that concept at all), and I am disappointed to see this being further bolstered by outside opinions (who weirdly persist in continuing the inquest over my "credentials", as if there were some serious doubt of my competence in this area).
Regarding the issue that " Many, many people will stop reading after the first sentence of an explanatory paragraph, if they think that sentence sums it up." this is actually a good point. I have modified the first sentence of the first paragraph to clarify its meaning. (In addition, I incorporated another suggestion that I inferred from Arthur Rubin's comment, but he has so far not responded). Does this satisfy your objections? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding credentials, once again; I am not making any statements about your credentials, but about the way you argued about credentials. It was a poor debate tactic with significant subtext that did not reflect well upon you. Whether or not you have credentials, whether or not you are right, and whether or not you understand the subject of both being credentialed and of mathematics is immaterial. I don't have a problem accepting that you have a respectable expertise in the subject, as your proposed text seems focused on the minutiae in a way that a person lacking any expertise would not write about.
My point is that the problem is not with what you proposed we say, but rather how you have proposed we say it. In all of Guy's comments, he has clearly stated that it is the appearance of a fringe POV-push that he objects to. I wholeheartedly concur with this assessment.
The diff you provided in this last comment seems to be a very good move towards addressing that. I would, however, replace the word "valid" with the word "rigorous", as to the uninitiated, the word "valid" implies "accurate," while the word "rigorous" does not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of how Introduction to general relativity was created in order to forestall problems with imprecise language that is almost certainly required to begin teaching the topic of general relativity which is, as an article, impenetrable to those without serious physics and mathematics chops. Similar things could be done here, perhaps. jps (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to do that; deniers of GR (yes, they exist) are a small and relatively unvocal group. Deniers of 0.999... = 1 are disproportionately vocal, and any regular on physics or mathematics forums can attest to their dogged perseverance. Putting very politically worded phrasing in an Introduction to why 0.999... = 1 article, and more formally but less self-aware wording in a more advanced article would just fuel their arguing. "See? The more technical Wikipedia articles says those proofs aren't fully complete! It's only the baby article that agrees with you, man!" (imagine that being said in Thomas Chong voice). But to be fair, there is the argument to be made that it's not incumbent upon us to undermine the conspiracy theorists; just to be as accurate and neutral as possible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I inhabit realms where GR deniers can easily be found and they absolutely dismiss the baby article in favor of their twisted reinterpretations of the "more technical" article. That's not Wikipedia's fault, however. jps (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think we have invited thus on ourselves by patronizing the reader. It is perfectly ok for a reader to say "I don't understand." Quite simply, there are some topics that the average reader will not understand properly. But what we've done is no doubt lulled many readers into a false sense that they do understand. The algebraic "proof", which seems so straightforward and simple, appears to be quite easy. Furthermore, it is not difficult to see that a wrong understanding of the proof leads immediately to a paradox, and the article as currently written does its very best to avoid correcting that wrong understanding in a coherent way. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Stan Ulam. "I sank as low as a mathematician could go. I wrote an article with decimals in it."
You mean, lulling them into a true sense of security? Most readers will accept the simple proof, and then the more rigorous treatment for those who have studied (or are studying analysis. Topics need to be pitched at an appropriate level. If the reader wants more information, they can drill don't into increasingly complex articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This misses the point. The algebraic proofs are not easier to understand than the proofs that appear later in the article; they only seem to be. Acceptance of the simple proof by a reader without any knowledge of mathematical analysis has nothing to do with understanding of the topic. We have no obligation to convince such a reader of anything, and these proofs should not be convincing to such a reader anyway. Skepticism of arguments like these is actually more important than blind acceptance. If a reader wants to understand why 0.999... and 1 are equal real numbers, they need to know what a real number is. That is the substance of the proof, not the facile algebraic manipulations. If you want to make the subject understandable to a broad audience, don't include an argument that deliberately obscures the most important aspects and claim that it explains the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The vast majority of our maths articles (and quite a lot of hard science ones) are unpalatable to a general audience because they have been edited over a number of years into a state using arguments like the above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
My point is that if we want readers to understand the subject, then we should convey an understanding of the subject. It needs to be explained. The proof under discussion completely fails to do that. Its only purpose is to convince the reader (by misleading them). But not only is "convincing" the reader not part of WP:V, but misleading the reader is actively against one or more of our policies (WP:NPOV, for one). If the proof has any merit whatsoever, it is as a teaching moment: here is this proof, here is why it is unsatisfactory. Does that make sense? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that this discussion has strayed sufficiently off-topic for this board. Perhaps to bring it back around a bit: it is clear that there is a risk of propagating misunderstandings/fringe theories regardless of how you frame this particular article. People on the frontline of math education for the general populace will be concerned with an article that goes into technical detail and loses an audience who is prone to believing demonstrably incorrect ideas (such as ) while those who are experts who think carefully about mathematics will be concerned that the article doesn't present common misconceptions as truths encouraging the middle-brow reader into accepting demonstrably incorrect ideas about the nature of real numbers. What is important is that we are true to the sources about the topic that are written and editorially verified by experts. Beyond that, we cannot change the problems that come with a crowdsourced encyclopedia that is supposed to be all things to all people. jps (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Pritikin diet

Needs eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -Location (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The Chamberlain Key

The article doesn't exist yet, but it may well soon, so this is a heads-up. See The Chamberlain Key: Unlocking the God Code to Reveal Divine Messages Hidden in the Bible. --Thnidu (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry (removed my comment), this is a warning, yep I think this will soon fetch up.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
How did Eugene Ulrich get roped in to writing the foreward? jps (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, it´s not selfpublished(?). Any decent coverage in sources? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Might as well put the redlinks here The Chamberlain Key Chamberlain Key just so everyone can easily tell if they get blued (as it were). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
According to my friend the Rabbi (a native Hebrew speaker), the story is a very inaccurate and twisted stretch—at best. Which means, yes, an article will sprout here in no time. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe could be mentioned in Bible code if popular enough (maybe too soon for this)? —PaleoNeonate - 21:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is just all the old Bible code claptrap rehashed for the Dan Brown generation isn't it? If so, and the book becomes moderately notable then it should get a short mention in that article and maybe a redirect from its name to it. If it becomes a genuine hit, and being claptrap has often been no impediment to that, then I guess we have to have an article on it. It is not like it would be the worst book or author we have an article about. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverse Warburg effect

Participation in this discussion is welcomed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sanat Kumara

Sanat Kumara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am amazed. 27 sections full of loving credulity. Does anyone have the patience to clean this up?

jps (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

How do you say "of course, this is just bollocks" in wikispeak? Roxy the dog. bark 14:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Good grief, I've been clicking links from that to try and get a handle on it, and I get article after article full of shite. ascended dentists, arborial plains, cosmic rest rooms, descended chaps, guides, aaaaargh. see edsum ... -Roxy the dog. bark 15:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
"The Master Ashtar was first incorporated into the Ascended Master Teachings by Joshua David Stone in the early 1990s, based on his incorporation of the early 1980s revelations of the medium Tuella into his own teachings. Stone had already begun teaching in 1993, based on the early 1980s revelations of Tuella, that the Master Jesus, under his galactic name Sananda (the name, Stone stated, he adopted after his resurrection), works with Commander Ashtar, flying with Pallas Athena in their own flying saucer within the Ashtar Galactic Command flying saucer fleet as its Commander-in-Chief.[1] According to Stone, another name used by Commander Ashtar to denote his flying saucer fleet is The Airborne Division of the Great White Brotherhood. Although the Ashtar Command is ultimately under the titular authority of Sanat Kumara, the Master Jesus in consultation with Pallas Athena and Ashtar, make all the day to day command decisions.[2] Stone continued to present these teachings after 1996 at the yearly Wesak Mount Shasta gatherings."

References

  1. ^ Stone, Joshua David Cosmic Ascension: Your Cosmic Map Home (March 1998) (Book 6 of the multi-volume series, The Easy-To-Read Encyclopedia of the Spiritual Path) ISBN 0-929385-99-3
  2. ^ The Ashtar Command by Joshua David Stone:
Sorry, I was just overcome with a Divine Imperative (you don't wanna mess with one of them) to repost that blissful paragraph.
We all owe Star Crash an apology. Probably Gong too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Suicide of Vince Foster, revisited

Suicide of Vince Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone check out this edit that moved Suicide of Vince Foster to Death of Vince Foster? This change appears to have been implemented based upon the claims of Miguel Rodriguez whose views don't get any substantial coverage in reliable source. Related: See current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death of Vincent Foster and previous at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Suicide of Vince Foster. -Location (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this usually done at a move request? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The move has been addressed. Sourcing issues could use a few more eyes. -Location (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This article does seem to be heating up. At least one user appears to be adding conspiratorial insinuations to the text. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Coherent catastrophism (again)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination)

Input, please!

jps (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Jim Marrs

Jim Marrs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Not in reliable sources yet, but article has been edited to reflect the word on Twitter that Marrs passed away today. Maybe a couple others could put the article on their watchlist. -Location (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That's now on his official Facebook page. Geogene (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Pukwudgie

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

Some kind of creature. Cited to a wordpress blog. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It's real folklore that got ramped up by a kid's book in the 1980s and (sigh) some sort of Harry Potter lore. The article needs a great deal of "this is just folklore" treatment. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Then there should be a lot more RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Good work finding reliable sources establishing it as folklore. The wordpress blog, and finding it in List of Cryptids initially led me to think it was dubious. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I usually start with a GBook search for something like this, and I get lots of hits going way back, and once I go back before 2000 (which gets rid of the HP stuff) I get The Good Giants and the Bad Pukwudgies, illustrated by the then-ubiquitous Tomie dePaola, and I get a few stray folklore references, going back into the early 1900s. Even the HP Wiki begins "The Pukwudgie is a creature that appears in the folklore of various indigenous peoples of North America, notably the Wampanoag." From what I gather it came in as a bit of "Imaginary Creatures" lore. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mae-Wan Ho

Can someone look over the article in general, as well as the expansion based upon this obituary that I reverted? --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_56&oldid=1257914971"