Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality is maintained.
  • Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
  • To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.
Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:FTN-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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


Notable UFO incident?[edit]

Falcon Lake incident (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

What are your thoughts?

jps (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The usual. Guy claims he saw something and the government documents that he claimed it. Some other guy interested in UFOlogy eventually writes about it in a book, but no mainstream sources do. Without mainstream sources discussing the subject, it could be merged to some parent article. Location (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There are no notable UFO incidents. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Aw c'mon see, Roswell UFO incident, that's pretty notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
However in this case, I see no evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay then: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon Lake incident. jps (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz[edit]

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

This to me looks like a case where a WP:FRINGEBLP is not warranted. I note that more than a few of the sources in the article don't even mention the person! However, I thought I'd put the case here before sending it off to deletion school just in case people know of some sourcing of which I'm not aware.

jps (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of the subject. As you alluded to above, the article appears to exploit tenuous links between Horowitz and Kimberly Bergalis as well as Horowitz and the Jeremiah Wright controversy as a backdoor approach to notability. The bulk of the article is built upon either primary source information or information that does not mention Horowitz. Location (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree I am not seeing RS discussing the subject significantly. There is an entry at The Skeptic's Dictionary here but even adding that to everything already in the article does seem to warrant an article. A quick check of some of the databases I have access to doesn't return anything of substance. I see no reason not to proceed to AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Horowitz (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Zhi Gang Sha[edit]

Zhi Gang Sha (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The article requires cleanup. Not sure if it is notable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot help with the clean-up right now, but it looks as though he might squeak by WP:GNG. Location (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Definitely needs some cleanup but as Location said seems like it might manage GNG. Ref #2 is a Sydney Morning Herald article which while very derivative of the Wired article lists some fairly notable attributes. Coverage is thin though, I'd say its borderline. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The link to the Wired article is a deadlink. Coverage is too thin IMO. I am having trouble finding enough reliable sources on the subject. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Archive link here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
That specific link can't be added to the article. My edit was rejected. See my "Edit filter log": "06:45, 9 August 2014: QuackGuru (talk | contribs) triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on Zhi Gang Sha. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: archive.is additions". QuackGuru (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I added the internet archive link to the reference. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is likely notable with the recent fixes. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
He's got an NYT Best Seller and publishes with Simon and Schuster, so he probably meets GNG criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism - truthers etc.[edit]

Just ran into this. Seems to be just a propaganda piece. Eg "Doug Rokke is a former Army Reserve Major who enlisted in 1967. He considers it his patriotic duty to tell the world aboput the dangers of depleted uranium has posed to the servicemen and the public. He also talks about the military coverup about the thousands of affected veterans". Rokke for instance is some sort of "truther" who participates in neo-Nazi conferences.[1] (Nordwave is an American National Socialist organization created in 2000 by Alex Hassinger.). User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret is another conspiracy theorist - see her website[2] - which I note says she also worked on mind control for HAARP. Joyce Riley is also a believer in a massive coverup.[3][4]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And then we have Beyond Treason which evidently makes a compelling case for " US government testing of chemicals on its own citizens such as Operation Whitecoat and MKUltra being responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism currently does not include any reliable secondary sourcing, but I have found news coverage of various protests. Is there an article that touches upon criticism of depleted uranium to which this could be redirected?
Beyond Treason does not appear to have sufficient coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability (films). I was going to say that it could be redirected to Joyce Riley, but that article redirects to yet another unsourced article, American Gulf War Veterans Association. Have we stumbled upon a Wikipedia:Walled garden? Location (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
And now I've found Dave vonKleist who sounds like a very unpleasant person (well, not in his article but then his article barely scratches the surface). An academic source for his article:[5]And [6] Those are about his "truther" leanings. The nastier side of him and Joyce Riley are mentioned at [7] And we have American Gulf War Veterans Association which sounds innocuous until you look at their website[American Gulf War Veterans Association]. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Add William Lewis (film director) and 911: In Plane Site to the list of articles that should go. Location (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll get the ball rolling:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Treason.

jps (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that opposition to the use of depleted uranium in weapons is hardly just a 'fringe' perspective - it is one that for example the United Nations has taken note of. [8] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The question is not whether the issue is notable (it is), the question is whether these people and their films and organizations are notable because of their involvement with it, which as far as I can tell is not the case. If we had an article about Joyce Riley I suppose all this could be merged there, but we don't and probably shouldn't. Anyway, the association's article is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Gulf War Veterans Association (2nd nomination). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. This article is clearly fringe - it's all about a fringe view about a global conspiracy and pushes fringe people with neo-Nazi connections. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Riley receives trivial coverage in a handful of news reports, however, that is all I see of her in reliable sources. Perhaps Joyce Riley should redirect to Gulf War syndrome, but there is not enough for a stand-alone article IMO. The beliefs of both factions of the American Gulf War Veterans Association are somewhat nebulous, so I couldn't even recommend a redirect there. Location (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Merge anything useful in to the Depleted uranium article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The only useful stuff is about the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons so I turned it into a redirect.
Started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave vonKleist - after I remove quite a bit of copyvio I searched for sources and failed. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I would advise caution around the ICBUW article, considering that it was mostly written by ICBUW (talk · contribs), who may also have edited other related topics in a way that frames the ICBUW's position as the definitive Truth. bobrayner (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lewis (film director). -Location (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Last one standing? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site. jps (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

POV-fork masquerading as a list article.[edit]

Or so I believe. YMMV.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of arguments for a young Earth

jps (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Light reading...[edit]

I thought I'd drop this here, but it may be more appropriate at WT:FRINGE. If so, please give it a move over there. Thanks.

[9]

Wikipedia has been moving more and more toward adopting a presumption of null hypotheses when it comes to WP:FRINGE material. This also explains situations where we preference material that is skeptical over credulous (see WP:FRIND, for example).

I wonder if it might be possible to shore up this emerging characteristic.

jps (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin (again)[edit]

Dean Radin (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "Dean Radin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

There is a debate on this talk-page about a positive review for Radin's book in a fringe journal and if it should be used on the article or not. Any comments, suggestions etc needed. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

TLDR. It would be helpful if you would link to the review and summarize the discussion. WP:RSN is another option. Location (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Basically, they are looking for a source to cite a sentence to: "Radin's work has received great support from parapsychologists" or something of that ilk. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a long debate on the talk-page about "biased" sources and skeptics that I have no interest in, but the original discussion was about a review in a fringe journal (the JSE) and if it should be included or not for Radin's article. Oddly the user who wanted this mentioned has since come out of the closet and openly admitted the journal is unreliable. So I think this has been solved. Goblin Face (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, not solved. Recent edits are working to obscure the division between Radin's work and the mainstream scientific view of such things. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks as though it's been locked down for a bit. I wish I could help but there is so much background that I cannot discern what specific issue(s) need to be addressed. Location (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The basic premise of the impassioned filibustering filling the Talk page seems to be the notion that criticism of Radin derives from biased sources and therefore must be balanced equally with the views of his supporters. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The talk-page has gotten out of hand, it's turned into a debate about parapsychology and if paranormal powers exist not Radin's Wikipedia article. I am not getting involved in it but an admin might need to step in and notify users about this if the forum talk continues. Goblin Face (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Spartacus Educational[edit]

Those familiar with the website might be interested in Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#spartacus-educational.com. Location (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Worst fringe article on Wikipedia right now?[edit]

Ann Druffel (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "Ann Druffel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Here it is! Ann Druffel and not a single reference!? Goblin Face (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Vast majority was copied from her website, so I removed those portions: [10]. Among reliable source, I could only find one brief mention in a newspaper: [11]. I don't see much need for discussion; redirect to Mutual UFO Network. Location (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup - no obvious evidence of notability as an author. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard Chanfray[edit]

Richard Chanfray (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "Richard Chanfray" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This article needs reliable sources for some of it's claims. Does anyone have any suggestions? I have done a few searches and found nothing of any value. Goblin Face (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As always, feel free to strip it to reliable sources. I imagine that he was a French Uri Geller and that you would dig up more in French sources. Location (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this bio meets WP:BIO. Fringe sources give his claims of alchemy some attention, but the only independent source, the "The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars", gives him a one-line mention as an eccentric playboy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Chanfray per my above comment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy[edit]

Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

In 1964, Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden was imprisoned on bribery charges. Bolden tried to weasel out of it by claiming the charges were trumped-up because he was going to speak to the Warren Commission; he later took a kernel of truth regarding a potential threat by an individual and claimed that he had knowledge of a wider conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy in Chicago. The Warren Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations said "bulls**t", but various conspiracy authors over time have unsurprisingly chosen to believe Bolden. Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy appears to have been built by User:Podiaebba upon those sources, as well as a few mainstream sources that also took Bolden's allegations at face value when he was promoting his book in 2007. According to the talk page, User:Ad Orientem challenged this as an alleged incident, but the challenge appears to have fizzled and the article continues to present Bolden's allegations as fact.

Should this redirect to the section entitled "Allegations of a Chicago plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy" within Abraham Bolden? I have spent a fair amount of time reworking that article, but I have left the lede alone until this can be resolved. Thanks! Location (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be redirected. The current article is trying to present fantasy as though it were true. Not the first time for Podiaebba; I hope that habit has been broken now. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

New Paradigm Films[edit]

New Paradigm Films (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "New Paradigm Films" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Doesn't appear notable to me, but maybe it does to you?

jps (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And, I should have mentioned, there's a little walled garden: Troll (singer) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views), Rover (band) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views). jps (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be notable in English sources, but given that this is apparently a Norwegian company, someone would need to check for Norwegian sources to know for sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Although most Norwegian material that is notable tends to end up in English somehow. jps (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a walled garden of promotion with no notability or reliable sourcing. Seems ripe for AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Rajesh Shah: BLP of a practicing homeopath[edit]

Rajesh Shah (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "Rajesh Shah" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I came across Rajesh Shah when I saw that new editor had linked to it from Life Force Homeopathy Clinics. I tried to verify the sources, but most of them are dead links or irrelevant pages. The only one that checked out was this one from the Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy". I would like second opinions on this reliability of this source and the notability of the subject. Thank you.- MrX 13:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly linking to way too many WP:PRIMARY sources. The media sources may not be enough to establish notability for a WP:FRINGEBLP. I'm not sure. jps (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Notability looks questionable. We wouldn't see the publication of a few papers as sufficient evidence of notability in conventional medical research, and proficiency in self-publicity isn't evidence either. I suppose it might be worth checking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, but AfD seems appropriate to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the input. I will probably nominate for deletion then.- MrX 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Editors may wish to review other related articles: Homoeopaths by nationality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talkcontribs) 23:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Bill Murphy (businessman) BLP[edit]

Resolved: Edited to comply with WP:NPOV -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Bill Murphy (businessman) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "Bill Murphy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This is a BLP of the founder of GATA, a fringe group that has been a major purveyor of conspiracy theories among gold bugs. There has been a persistent and ongoing effort by gold bugs to create and edit articles in ways that promote their views. This appears to be another example. Any suggestions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (2nd nomination). Location (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article has been heavily edited and I believe now passes NPOV. Suggest closing this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett relativity claims[edit]

Viewfinder stated that he/she will not be editing the material that was the subject of Sławomir Biały's original notification. This noticeboard is not the appropriate forum to discuss issues related to user conduct. Location (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Jacob Barnett (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "Jacob Barnett" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

There is a dispute over at Talk:Jacob Barnett#Specific details concerning the extent to which the WP:FRINGE guideline applies to claims made in the tabloid media about the subject of the article. The article was the subject of a recent AfD. In the analysis of one editor (User:Agricola44) at that debate, most of the stories on the subject contained questionable claims, like that Barnett had disproved Einstein's theory of relativity, disproved the Big Bang, was tipped for a Nobel Prize, and so on. There is an editor, Viewfinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), over at that discussion page who doggedly denies that such claims were made in the press, despite obvious consensus to the contrary. So as to avoid any appearance of stacking the deck, here is a small selection direct quotes from news articles concerning the subject:

  • Indystar "The numbers that keep him from snoozing are the same that led him to develop his own theory of physics -- an original work that proposed a "new expanded theory of relativity" and takes what Einstein developed even further."[1]
  • Time "12-year old expands Einstein's theory of relativity" and "Could Einstein’s Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he’s got the solutions to prove it."[2]
  • CTV News "he built a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's field of relativity, which was described by a Princeton University professor as ground-breaking."[3]
  • The Blaze "he’s working on an expanded version of [Einstein]’s theory of relativity. So far, the signs are good. Professors are astounded. So what else does a boy genius with vast brilliance do in his free time? Disprove the big bang, of course."[4]
  • Yahoo News "12-year-old boy has new theory of relativity" and "he's about to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity."[5]
  • Huffington Post: "Barnett believes he can prove Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity wrong, TIME reports. Astrophysics professor Scott Tremaine of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton confirms he's onto something. Another project in the works: disproving the Big Bang Theory."[6]

Now, it seems to most editors over there that the mandate of the neutral point of view policy is that, in light of such fringe claims, to assert that they did not hold up under scrutiny. There is at least one secondary critical source on the subject, a blog post by Phil Plait (aka "Badastronomer"), on the matter, available at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/08/a-very-smart-kid-and-a-solid-theory/, that we cite as clear evidence of this assertion. There is another source authored by Steve Novella that we do not cite because it is a self-published source, but that also gives critical commentary on claims made in the media, available here.

I am referring the matter here, because the editor in question seems absolutely to refuse to get the point, starting new discussions with the same old arguments that have already been solidly rebutted by other editors (myself, Agricola44, and User:David Eppstein). Given this persistence, there is very little involved editors can do, and I think it is necessary to involve the wider community in this matter. There was already a thread on ANI a few days ago (in my opinion premature). But since that thread, Viewfinder's continued stubbornness leads me to think that the time for community involvement and possible sanctions has gotten much closer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am astonished that SB has raised the matter here. He insists that he has obliterated my case, in which case my position will have no impact on the Jacob Barnett article. Please do not sanction me. If a neutral party has some helpful advice for me, then I would welcome that. Viewfinder (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Viewfinder, even in this short post you have completely misrepresented the dispute. At least 3 editors have categorically rejected your arguments at the talk page. Still more at the original AfD. Yet you continue to reiterate the same arguments. This is considered to be disruptive editing, and at this point I think sanctions are the only recourse available to get you to accept the consensus and stop wasting everyone's time. Your most recent post, an obvious pretext for rebooting the discussion yet again has convinced me of this. As for your comment here, I think the first law of holes applies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that Viewfinder's brief comment here already exhibits one of his frequent debating tactics, insinuating that anyone who disagrees with him is "non-neutral" and that only opinions from others will be listened to. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I hope it would not be out of order for me to point out that despite SB and others aggressively making his case for the deletion of Jacob Barnett at AfD and DRV, the article was not deleted. What appears to have upset SB and his cohorts is that I am refusing to plead guilty to their charge that I am denying relativity and the big bang, and to support his condemnation of the mass media for their coverage of Jacob Barnett. I have stated my case, he has stated his. We do not agree. I am not editing the article. Viewfinder (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I have added this to the talk page thread: "I think it is time for us to agree to disagree about the media coverage of Jacob Barnett and discontinue this thread. I am not editing the article on this matter." Viewfinder (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that I think that, following admin rejection of its deletion, SB has re-written the article in a manner that slants it against the subject and his mother, and has done so with intent to get the article deleted in the future. But that is my personal view. I have made my case, it is up to others decide whether or not I have made the case that anything in the article should be changed. Viewfinder (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Viewfinder (talk · contribs) persistently either refuses to or can't get the point. He is obsessed with this BLP of a minor to an unhealthy degree. The consequence is an editor who is not basically WP:COMPETENT and impossible to engage with constructively -- and thus is a continual source of frustration to editors who are trying to work this out. My attempts to engage with him have resulted in the very friendly tactic of him sticking his fingers in his ears and going "na-na-na-na-na".
The article if written to WP:NPOV will inevitably be negative due to ridiculous WP:FRINGE claims that do not stand up to basic scrutiny. Viewfinder (talk · contribs) doesn't understand that these claims are WP:FRINGE, and is mightily impressed by them.
My previous suggestion of a topic ban was rejected because he wasn't being rude or making personal attacks, and as we all know around here admins like to skim-read disputes and decide the argument on who loses their temper first. Given proper implementation of policy and correct closure of the 2nd AFD where there was a clear and unequivocal consensus to delete, we shouldn't have an article on this unnotable individual anyway. This is despite Viewfinder (talk · contribs)'s triumphalist clams that the article is notable because it was kept at AFD. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Your previous suggestion of a topic ban was rejected in part because of your refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. More of which is on display here. --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN (talk · contribs) - yes, I am not "dropping the stick". Why? Two reasons: Firstly, this is a BLP issue related to a real-life human being, so it is of importance. The resulting "I don't care" attitude isn't helpful. Secondly, the horse isn't exactly dead; both AFDs resulted in an overwhelming consensus to delete. This should have been sorted out by now. That is isn't reflects very badly on Wikipedia. I predict that this will be back at DRV/AFD very shortly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not the material in question is fringe, it was written in publications that are certainly not fringe. The above contribution includes a personal attack, accusing me of "unhealthy obsession" with a minor. Viewfinder (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Involved editors: This is not ANI. Please take this discussion back to Talk:Jacob Barnett, particularly since Viewfinder stated he/she will not be editing the material in question. Location (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that discussion should be at Talk:Jacob Barnett, but the original notification was well within this noticeboard's remit. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Although Viewfinder (talk · contribs)'s assertion that he's not editing the article is useful, he still needs to stop trying to discuss it on the talk page as that's being disruptive and preventing other editors from doing their jobs because they're being forced to deal with him. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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


Rajan Sankaran[edit]

Rajan Sankaran (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "Rajan Sankaran" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Another article about a living fringe theory proponent with very little coverage outside homeopathic or esoteric literature. The best article about him contains a summary of ideas which appear to be an expansion of the homoeopathic concept of 'miasms'. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If he is notable, it's because of WP:AUTHOR. However, I'm not seeing it. jps (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Frequently published by Homeopathic Medical Publishers, which appears to be the name he uses for self-published material. The source noted above appears to be self-published, too. Is there any good target for redirect? Location (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a WP:SOAP situation similar to Rajesh Shah. jps (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree, I cannot see any way this subject would pass WP:AUTHOR since none of his publications appear to be that important, even within the fringe field of homoeopathy. The AFD is strong with this one. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajan Sankaran (3rd nomination) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jan Scholten[edit]

Jan Scholten (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "Jan Scholten" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

And another biographical article about a fringe-theory promoter: This article may be an AFD candidate: I can see no evidence of notability even within esoteric subject of homoeopathy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If he is notable, it's because of WP:AUTHOR. However, I'm not seeing it. jps (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Does not appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or WP:AUTHOR. Location (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to pull the AfD trigger? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Scholten. Location (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas[edit]

George Vithoulkas (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "George Vithoulkas" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Another WP:BLP about a homoeopath. As with the previous examples, the claims to notability rest almost entirely on self-published and fringe sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is a winner of the Right Livelihood Award automatically notable? jps (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a major award and the sources for the article about it look pretty dicey to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The review of Vithoulkas' The Science of Homoeopathy could warrant a merge/redirect if there is additional coverage of the book. Other than that, trivial news coverage is all I find in what we typically consider to be independent reliable sources. Those sources would warrant at least a redirect to Right Livelihood Award. (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
After a closer look at the award on top of Location's comment above, I think there may be an argument for marginal notability here. The article has significant problems but the award does appear to have some recognition in RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the question is whether or not it is a "significant award" under WP:ANYBIO. I perceive a bit of a contradiction if the award is significant, but the recipient has not received very much coverage in reliable sources. Location (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about the notability of this award Award - I went through the list of recipients and other than Amy Goodman I had not heard of any of them. Any suggestion that it is an 'alternative Nobel' is pure marketing. Indeed, claims in media that this award is in anyway similar to the Nobel Prize seem to have been merely careless repetitions of an advertising strapline --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If I remember rightly, about five years ago, people from his homeopathy school were editing here to promote Vithoulkas a lot, until page protections shut it down a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I recognize more than a few of the award winners including Bianca Jagger and Mordechai Vanunu. Calling it an "alternative Nobel" is certainly a PR-move that should be interrogated, but they aren't wholly obscure. I could even see a possible case for articles about all the recipients, but more research is necessary. Vithoulkas definitely gets mentioned a lot in comparison to some other homeopaths, I'd say. jps (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another AFD in which the question seems to rest entirely on whether the winner of a Right Livelihood Award is inherently notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrikrishna Upadhyay. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that the award qualification criterion (WP:ANYBIO) is a subheading in a section stating "conversely, meeting one or more [of these] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Franck Gordon[edit]

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franck Gordon - created a few years ago by a relative and edited presumably by himself. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

New Mexico School of Natural Therapeutics[edit]

Reads like a advert for this fringe theory promoting school. I spot-checked some of the sources in the 'press' section which mostly seem to be only tangentially about the subject, those that still existed on the Internet appeared to be little more than articles published by individuals who are associated with the school. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Unlike other schools listed, this is not an accredited institution, but it does seem to have some sources, although there are red links to less-than-likely spin-off articles. More research required, IMHO. jps (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, I think I've done enough digging without any luck. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Mexico School of Natural Therapeutics. jps (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine[edit]

Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) The subject Appears to be a private alt-med clinic with absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability other than a somewhat grandiose sounding name. I've tagged it WP:N, however I suspect that this may be a quick AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A very quick glance suggests AfD is likely the best move. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine --Salimfadhley (talk)
Not sure about this one. Here's a source documenting this and similar schools in Canada]. Here it is mentioned again. As it is here. There may be enough to glean for an actual article here if someone could be careful. jps (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
May not be AfD material but needs the advert trimmed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine[edit]

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) Another private fringe-theory promoting organization. There seems to be absolutely no references to validate the claims in the article beyond a listing on 'HLC' which appears to be a privately run directory of colleges. I've tagged WP:N but suspect that this could be an AFD candidate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is an accredited college, though that doesn't mean much more than that they are eligible to get federal money and that they have a mission statement that they convinced a committee that they were at least trying to follow. jps (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The claim of Federal accreditation is highly fishy to me. It's unsourced and I don't think accreditation works that way. I always thought the states do that though I am open to correction from someone more knowledgeable on the subject. That and all of the certifying organizations are as bogus as a three dollar bill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, accreditation is a bit of a racket in the US. Accreditation is done regionally by "peer review" which generally means that every three years an institution is subject to scrutiny by other members of the accrediting body. It's easy to check if a college is accredited, and this one is [12]. I do see that this happened.... but that's a rather external point. jps (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
If the accreditation is legit, and given that Wikipedia has granted a near carte blanche presumption of notability to high schools and secondary schools, I don't think AfD is an option here. This one is probably going to have to be heavily edited to try and remove the PROFRINGE and POV tone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
US Department of Education points to Council on Naturopathic Medical Education which lists Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences as an accredited program. In my opinion, the current version of the article appears to be neutrally worded without any claims that warrant a red flag. Location (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I found non-trivial coverage in a reliable source: [13][14]. Not sure how to rate this source: [15]. It's probably enough to warrant removal of the current tag. Location (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I took down the PROD notice. I don't think it can be supported at this point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested in working on the article, but I placed the above links on the talk page for someone else who might be. Location (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

California Naturopathic Doctors Association[edit]

Resolved: Deleted per CSD WP:A7. Location (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

California Naturopathic Doctors Association (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) I just tagged this stub article with CSD-A7. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man[edit]

Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) Article about a fringe-theory promoting book. References are difficult to trace but appear to be only tangentially related to the subject. The article reads like a WP:ADVERT and it's dense, overlong prose gives undue weight to the claims of it's author. --Salimfadhley (talk)

It has been translated into many languages, apparently, but I'm having a hell of a time finding reviews. The author's bio (Gopi Krishna (yogi) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)) is pretty atrocious too. Someone should take some pruning shears to them.
In related news: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Consciousness Research.
jps (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Religious symbolism of unity of opposites[edit]

Stuff I made up in school one day, it seems. But maybe not. If you can rescue it, please be my guest! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious symbolism of unity of opposites.

jps (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion sorting option[edit]

Hi All,

It dawns on me that our current system for notifying this board of every AfD is a bit cumbersome. Maybe it would be easier if we had a Fringe Deletion Discussions category and then had an automated list generated at the top of the board? We could then continue to discuss cases where the person wasn't sure whether AfD was appropriate or not.

jps (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but part of the purpose of this is to ask whether something ought to be deleted. this appears to serve two additional purposes (1) it implies that there may be some controversy in the deletion and (2) it gets what I shall refer to as the "fringe experts" notified and motivated because of (1). Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)*That's a good idea. But we should still drop an AfD in progress note onto any discussion thread if/when the article in question is nominated for deletion. The reason for that is that normally once an article goes to AfD we don't want to be discussing its merits, or lack thereof of anywhere else, lest we raise questions of potential canvassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
While I agree in principle with your concern, the notification itself is what would cause canvassing, the issue with discussing here is just splitting up of the discussion/forum shopping. The canvasing issue is real though, I was recently involved in an AFD/DRV where there was an objection to the AFD because a particular wikiproject was not notified (I was not even aware it existed).However, I looked a bit into the history from that project, and every time that wikiproject is notified, every member comes in and floods with keeps. That type of automated canvass is an endemic problem as almost every wikiproject has vested interests or slanted perception of what is (or is not) notable/encyclopedic - often not in alignment with the wider wiki opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have had a couple of similar experiences in AfD where there was a sudden rush of KEEP !votes once word got out to one or another "interested project." It happens and I am not sure there is any silver bullet for it. All we can do is to try to be careful and avoid anything on this board that could be (mis)interpreted as unethical. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Ad Orientem. There's enough "a cabal of WP editors is conspiring against us" paranoia among fringers in the blogosphere already, so no need to stir up more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

SuperConsciousness Magazine[edit]

Resolved: Deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

SuperCmag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) created an article that I think probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperConsciousness Magazine. The same use than proceeded to spam that magazine to a variety of articles.

jps (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Afterlife[edit]

There are two sections near the bottom of this article. The parapsychology section is filled with fringe sources (paranormal books and psychical papers) and the science section has fringe claims of parapsychologists like Raymond Moody being cited as scientists, sourced to YouTube videos. There is also Robert Lanza's fringe view about immortality being cited. I think most of this should be removed. Let me know any suggestions about this. Goblin Face (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the parapsychology section needs a complete rewrite to frame the existing collection of theories as minority viewpoints. The science section is much easier to fix, it just needs cleaning out of the Lanza stuff and introducing the concept of NDEs as something that scientists and medical professionals have, in general, tended to be skeptical of. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just a light clean-up and a rewording for NPOV would suffice. Audience needs to see medical professionals' and psychologists' books/studies on NDEs. Logos (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoughtful perspectives on the nature of life[edit]

begins thus:

Starting in the 1930s, as physics, chemistry and biology were maturing as sciences, a number of scientists proposed thoughtful perspectives on the nature of life ...

This seems a very curious and newish (June 2014) article giving often unsourced or poorly-sourced summaries of some variously odd notions about life. I think the article is essentially not encyclopedic. What say you? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not an article, that's an essay. That covers ground already thoroughly covered in abiogenesis and life. Kolbasz (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is essayish, but I think that there is probably some salvageable encyclopedic content there. Its creator seems relatively new, and I think it might be best to userfy the content and try to work with him to find a place for some of it on Wikipedia. Just my 2c. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is anything worth saving it can be merged otherwise the page should be removed from mainspace. I recommend userfy it or AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature of life. Anyone who believes nonsense Hoyle spewed is correct is sadly deluded. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Materialization (paranormal)[edit]

The IP turned new user persistently adds a text which is irrelevant and in my opinion false. Could someone please have a look at the text and also at the talk page. They are at three reverts already.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Majestic 12[edit]

Majestic 12 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
(Find sources: "Majestic 12" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Article about "a secret committee of scientists, military leaders, and government officials" that investigated flying saucers. It appears that there is coverage of this in reliable sources (e.g. this book is from an academic source; primary source documentation from the FBI... note "BOGUS"" handwritten over some of the documents), but the article contains quite a few fringe sources and I'm not sure that primary source documentation has been used properly. Location (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't like how the article is written and I'll agree that it has a lot of questionable sources. I assume the "case for/case against" approach is the consensus between the skeptics and the tinfoil types. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Horerczy[edit]

Possibly of interest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horerczy. Apparently this is a creature that breathes out Alps in the form of butterflies. No evidence for its folkloric existence has yet been found except in the writing of this person. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ropen[edit]

"The Ropen is a flying cryptid[1] alleged to live in the vicinity of Papua New Guinea.[2] According to the second edition of the book Searching for Ropens, it is "any featherless creature that flies in the Southwest Pacific, and has a tail-length more than 25% of its wingspan," but according to the third edition of that book, it is "A modern pterosaur with Rhamphorhynchoid characteristics."

Page could probably use some eyeballs... Followed by (at the least) a few whacks with the reality stick.

Yeah looks a bit ropey. Tempting just to cut the unsourced stuff as that would yield an immediate improvement... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It's suggested here that the entire "Ropen" enterprise is the result of sockpuppeting by a single person. There's a plurality of sources in the article, but if they are actually all essentially from a single person they're all primary sources, in addition to being just plain unreliable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Aside from a number of of crypto-fringe sources and a few creationist books pushing the view that this mythical creature exists, are there any independent reliable sources that could be used to write an objective article? If not, AfD is the place for it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at thwacking some sense into the article, but I agree AfD is the place to put it. The books appear to be vanity press material, and the website sources exist solely to push them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ropen -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Trikasthanas (astrology)[edit]

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

This article appears to make no sense at all. That's probably because it deals with one of the more outré aspects of tantric astrology, or it could just be a massive hoax. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Aditya soni, many contributions give me cause for concern[edit]

Aditya soni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) I was just going through the contributions of this user. This editor seems to have contributed a large number of articles about Indian Astrology, all are written in the same excessively dense style as Trikasthanas (astrology). All that I saw are weakly sourced and present fringe theories as fact. Would any editors care to scrutinize this user's work? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Among several authored pages, there's Unmaad_yoga_(astrology) (an astrological explanation for insanity), Reka yoga (astrology) (an astrological explanation for Einstein), Dhi (Hindu thought) (an entire article for a word). This user is quite prolific, it could take quite a long time to go through everything. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
That just dinged the crackpot index. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology). --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh Lord, s/he has 160 created articles. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't even know where to begin. It's very difficult to tell in even the slightest bit what most of them are talking about. Take the newest one: Rasasvada. If I were to try to paraphrase the opening, I'd get: "Rasasvada is a word that means appreciation". It is in no way clear what the rest of the article has to do with this, and the rest of the article doesn't create any sense of meaning in my head at all (I see words, I can certainly read it, and yet...). Is it practical to go through all 160 individually and try to deal with them? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely impenetrable. AS CC says, where to begin? Here's a sample sentence from the Trikasthanas article; this is one sentence, mind you. "Kalidasa in his Uttara Kalamrita vide Sloka IV.22 states that the lord of the 8th in 6th or in the 12th, the lord of the 6th in the 8th or in the 12th and the lord of the 12th in the 6th or in the 8th house from the Lagna (Ascendant) give rise to extraordinary Raja Yogas provided these lords are mutually related by conjunction or by mutual aspect or by mutual exchange of signs, and at the same time do not relate with any other planet i.e. house-lord; and in case all three are involved then a very powerful Kalidasa in his Uttara Kalamrita vide Sloka IV.22 states that the lord of the 8th in 6th or in the 12th, the lord of the 6th in the 8th or in the 12th and the lord of the 12th in the 6th or in the 8th house from the Lagna (Ascendant) give rise to extraordinary Raja Yogas provided these lords are mutually related by conjunction or by mutual aspect or by mutual exchange of signs, and at the same time do not relate with any other planet i.e. house-lord; and in case all three are involved then a very powerful Raja yoga will arise." Wow. --Seduisant (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to raise this on the Original Research noticeboard. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We are going to need some help, and I think we are going to need an Admin to get involved in this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you willing to pass on our concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. Please link back to here so that interested individuals can track progress of the matter. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology) --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've come across this editor before and warned them of their violations of WP:FRINGE: User_talk:Aditya_soni#Fringe_guidelines. They didn't even respond. They completely lack the ability of writing their belief system in a neutral way. Instead of attributing beliefs, the editor is writing it as fact. Second Quantization (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Per the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) and the other Afds, it appears that User:Aditya soni has no concerns that these articles are unreadable to the vast majority of Wikipedians. Other examples of this lack of concern show in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology): "I am not prepared to submit explanations because I can explain things only to those who understand these subjects" and "...I have posted articles dealing with Hindu astrology which can be more appreciated perhaps only by those who are in know of astrology." If the terminology used in these articles is so "technical" that it is meant only to be understood with those who have advanced knowledge of Hindu astrology, then WP:NOTJARGON also applies. Location (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there any precedent or process for bumping a large number of articles from main-space into the AFC space? That seems like a humane alternative to just AFD'ing (possibly) over 100 articles. I really do think that this individual should have been writing a book on their favorite subject. It's unfortunate that he/she has been using Wikipedia as an outlet for his/her own fringe research. Speaking of which, this editor has stated that all the articles on Hindu Astrology were 'reviewed' - so the question is who is reviewing this stuff and how did it pass review before? --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology) discussion, this editor owns that they have created 160 yoga-astrology articles. I haven't the inclination to verify this, but if true, Salimfadhey's question above becomes vital. (I did scan two pages of contribs and found at least a score of N articles.) No one on this forum has time to address 160 AfDs at once. --Seduisant (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The list of N articles, a few of which are moves, can be found here. Location (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I am going to post a link to this discussion on ANI and ask for some help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion at WP:ANI includes a proposal to topic-ban the editor from creating new articles in article space (rather than going through AFC review). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I wrote this at ANI, but it seems worth repeating here. How do most of these articles differ from the ones we have on esoteric topics in Christianity? If one were to prepend "For the large majority of Hindus" to most of these articles they would be indistinguishable to me from Holy Spirit (Christianity) which begins: "For the large majority of Christians" and then is entirely based on WP:INUNIVERSE sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit concerned about this as well. However, Holy Spirit (Christianity) does at least cite sources outside of holy books, does a little more to cover the topic in a way that's understandable by people outside the group, establishes some importance in artwork, and to some degree establishes the "Holy Spirit" as a major aspect of the religion that may consequently be necessary encyclopedic coverage. Those things said, I find some of it to be little more penetrable than the astrology articles. At least I can see how the article is salvageable, though. The vast majority of the astrology articles in question are written for insiders, do not establish why any one else should care about it or what the importance of the topic is within the religion, and do not cite significant sources outside of the holy books directly; in fact they mostly act as synopses or tutorials for said books rather than encyclopedic articles. That, in addition to the fringey material claims, make the cases different. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If I grant the patina of art history and a few outside references, how about the theology article that Holy Spirit (Christianity) sends me to: Pneumatology (Christianity) and many of the others in the Christian theology template at the bottom of that article? One in-line citation to "Psychological Biblical Criticism" and pretty darn impenetrable and written for insiders. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, many articles are cloaked in impenetrable jargon and require an advanced knowledge of the topic to even begin to approach. However, this is not really a reason why these articles do not need to be improved. If anything, all this means is that, as a community, we should work harder to make sure our articles have thorough references and do not refer to concepts like the holy ghost or the Chinese zodiac or transubstantiation without at least touching the cultural and religious context. It's not just about readability, it's about usefulness and the policies should ensure that all articles -- regardless of subject -- are reasonably accessible to readers. Alicb (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm all for improving articles. I just don't understand the moral panic splashed across three noticeboards because some Hinduism articles need editing when no such panic exists over the innumerable Christianity articles that also need editing. One person's fringe theories are another person's religion. See WP:WORLDVIEW. And Wikipedia isn't going to break because some articles need editing. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@IP User, this is the Fringe Theory Noticeboard - our mission is to examine fringe topics on Wikipedia. At the moment this editor is making a lot of additions to the mainspace that are highly questionable - actually I've been reviewing many of User:Aditya soni's changes - this editor's older contributions about Hinduism and Buddhism seem to be significantly better articles than the recent articles about Hindu Astrology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The question is by what definition is Hindu Astrology a fringe theory given that astrology is much more central to Hinduism than it is to some western religions? How is it not religion and religion that is practiced by more people than the entire population of the United States? If the claim is that it is fringe is based on it being unscientific, then transubstantiation is fringe and so on. Why can these articles not be edited to apply to "adherents" and "followers" as I have done with Reka yoga [16]. Why must the creator be burned as a witch for the sin of having added religious content to Wikipedia that needs editing? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is burning anybody as a witch. My main concerns are the poor quality of writing, original research and lack of verifiability of the astrology article. I'm also concerned that many of the astrology articles do not meet our standards of notability which are really at the core of Wikipedia. If you disagree with these policies, it might be best to select another wiki! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all, talking about witch burnings is ridiculous and quite frankly insulting. No one is talking about having the creator of these articles punished or harmed in any way. No one is calling him a sinner. I don't know about anyone else, but I think that there is a lot of value of this user's contributions and that is why I am eager to find a positive solution that involves remediating the articles in question, not simply deleting them outright. I think we can all agree that these articles need work; we shouldn't get hung up on which noticeboard things are posted to -- we can always move it out of this one into another one at any time if the discussion here isn't helpful. The main concern that I have with this user is that he has so far not been very communicative. Alicb (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
They are talking about having him punished, yes. There is the concept of a draconian and arbitrary sanction to prevent creation of articles except via WP:AFC. That, to me, is punishment. Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Comment It seems to me that this discussion is better held at ANI where it has been raised with a view to stopping the editor from creating new articles. That discussion seems to me to pre-empt any discussion here. While we have no obvious concept of seniority of noticeboards, one with the direct power to sanction an editor seems to me to take logical precedence over one that may wish to do it.

It appears from the outside that this is a 'my religious nuttery is better than thy religious nuttery' discussion, concealed in a procedural discussion about a reasonably large number of articles created by a prolific editor who writes in arcane English and whose referencing may or may not be imperfect for some or all of the time. That editor has now joined the discussion at ANI with words showing calm contemplation of the matter at hand.

If this is a matter of article quality then that can be addressed in the usual way, ranging from improvement where possible to deletion where necessary. There is no time limit on this. If it means work, so be it. If there are few who will do this work, so be it.

If this is a matter of article quantity then we need to take a long inward look. I would like to be as productive! I wonder how the editor in question does it! Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that any punitive actions may be unwarranted in this case. Having spent more time reviewing User:Aditya soni's edits the problematic articles seem to be mostly this editor's later works on Astrology. They are borderline unreadable, poorly sourced and still give rise to concerns WP:OR and WP:N concerns. Bumping 160 articles out of main-space is also an unwarranted action given that a considerable proportion of this editor's contributions do not give reasons for concern. At this time I believe that a process of active engagement might yield the best possible result. I still think that the AFCs we have open on four of her astrology articles should remain. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

META: Move (or link) WP:NFRINGE into the main WP:N guidelines Suggestion[edit]

Kindly review my proposal at the WP:N talk-page to restructure the notability guidelines for fringe topics. The rationale behind my change is to make it easier for editors to find the relevant notability guidance for fringe topics which is somewhere buried within WP:FRINGE and not linked to from WP:N as most users might expect. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Health Equation: Health = Nutrients/Calories[edit]

Seems to be and mixed up with anti-vax some and questionable dietary concepts, but the fringe nature of the concepts here wasn't (and still isn't) properly apparent. More eyes welcome ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Question on possible fringe source[edit]

FYI: In Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#whowhatwhy.com, I've posted a question on how Russ Baker's WhoWhatWhy may be used in Umbrella Man (JFK assassination). Thanks! Location (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I am more concerned about the overall tone of the article than I am about this particular source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ronan Coghlan[edit]

Is this guy notable? He seems to have written his own article. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • If there is a viable claim to WP:N it's probably going to lie in WP:NAUTHOR. The cited sources are worthless. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to find anything in reliable sources independent of the subject to support WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NBOOK. Location (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ipuwer papyrus[edit]

Not sure if this is fringe but I think it is. We have an editor adding their own research (which seems to be something he doesn't understand at all although he says he's read WP:NOR to this article, adding their own parallels between Exodus passages and the Ipuwer papyrus.[17] Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, this is what he cites as his source.[18] Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
And adding the whole table looks like copyvio as well as WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This is definitely notable fringe, and there is a great deal of critical treatment of the thesis. I haven't gone over the article yet, but it could easily be cut down to something brief and balanced, with the ohrnet page as a ext. link for the chart. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)