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 12 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:


Thomas J. Devine[edit]

Thomas J. Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Friend and business associate of George H. W. Bush who resigned from the CIA in 1953. The article uses crap sourcing in attempt to link Big Oil to the assassination of JFK. The issues here are somewhat related to a previous discussion about the Harbinger Group, but on a smaller scale. This appears to be a BLP. Is there enough to bring this in line with Wikipedia's notability standards? - Location (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not that I can see, plus it really very heavily on primary sources (hint: the Mary Ferrell Archive is a research store of JFK assassination-related primary texts). Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Devine. jps (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Acting Witan of Mercia[edit]

Acting Witan of Mercia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think that is an article which could do with some attention. --nonsense ferret 00:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a bit of citation overkill, but very few obvious internet sources to assist in fact-checking. Probably a good idea to start by weeding out those that don't meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable. - Location (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The entire article consists of a synthesis from primary sources. There is virtually no coverage of this fringe group, and what direct coverage there is, seems to me to be largely dismissive. I was born in Mercia and used to work at the King Offa pub, this group is somewhat less significant than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for input - please also see the directly related Jeff Kent (author) - previously nominated (by me) and deleted at AfD. I do not know what its prospects might be now --nonsense ferret 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you post the link to the previous Afd? - Location (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
previous discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Jeff Kent (author) --nonsense ferret 11:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyway to determine if the article is essentially the same as before? The claim to notability is as an academic, musician, author, and historian. Despite the vast number of sources given, I don't see anything that would pass WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC, or WP:AUTHOR. - Location (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign Mercia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This one is related to Acting Witan of Mercia and has questionable sourcing (i.e. primary sources and book sources that do not mention the organization). This reliable source shows what is likely the extent of coverage that should be in Wikipedia. - Location (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed Sovereign Mercia but it should possibly go to AfD. I also removed mention of these two groups from Mercia where they were self-sourced, as I consider the mentions promotional and WP:UNDUE. I was promptly reverted by the creator of the article Sovereign Mercia. I've removed them again. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
And they are back. The argument being used is 'revert to longstanding version' which is true in a sense, the editor reverting me now is the editor who added them in 2008. I've suggested on the talk page that they and a few others be removed, added to see also where appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Another editor revised the text, adding a source that says "There is also a website dedicated to the creation of a sovereign state of Mercia (Sovereign Mercia website)." Hardly a reason for its mention and not something that can be used to meet WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
And now I am at my PC and not my phone, it was the original editor who added the source, another editor then removed material saying it was pov, also adding page number and url. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Flower of Life[edit]

Flower of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original research aplenty. Any cleanup possible?

jps (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I love "Possibly five patterns resembling the Flower of Life can be seen on one of the granite columns of the Temple of Osiris in Abydos, Egypt, and a further five on a column opposite of the building." From the article, it is clear that the name originates with Melchizedek, and is not an adaptation of existing name. The claims that the pattern is found elsewhere are a masterful synthesis. "An early example of a repetitive pattern constructed like the pattern of the Flower of Life can be seen in the Assyrian rooms of the Louvre Museum in Paris.[7]" "The extensive corpus of drawings of different geometrical figures by Leonardo da Vinci contains some figures resembling the Flower of Life" There are self-references to his own work. His website is here. Probably safe to delete the lot. Otherwise I will give the name 'circle of Damian' to any ordinary circle, and write a very long article about all the archeological sites where the circle of Damian can be found. You have been warned.Peter Damian (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess the answer is, "No." Thus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Information theory and quantum mechanics[edit]

See Bob Doyle (inventor). I suspect Doyle himself is responsible for much of that article, and other related ones. None of this makes sense to me:

Doyle describes himself as an "Information Philosopher". He argues that information philosophy can shed light on some classical unsolved problems, specifically free will, values, and knowledge.
Doyle's basic argument is that quantum mechanics, especially the wave function collapse, and the second law of thermodynamics play a key role in the creation of information structures. These structures range from galaxies, stars, and planets, to molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. They are the structures of terrestrial life from viruses and bacteria to sensible and intelligent beings. And they are the constructed ideal world of thought, of intellect, of spirit, including the laws of nature, in which humans play a role as co-creator.

On the other hand I don't know anything about quantum mechanics. Advice please. Peter Damian (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This part of the article is opinion and/or original research. I think this article does contain some notable contributions. Doyle invented Merlin, one of the first electronic games, which was the best-selling toy in 1980. Unfortunately, part of the article is opinion and part of it is simply not well screened for importance. I think the article should be kept, but it needs to concentrate on concrete and notable accomplishments. Those interested can go to Doyle's blog or personal site for the subjective content. Roches (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Doyle (inventor). jps (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Muslim population growth[edit]

Beginning of the second paragraph in the lead starts with "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the fastest-growing branch of Islam is Ahmadiyya". What my concerns is that User:Peaceworld111 keep adding this fringe theory to this article. Using Christian source on Islamic article about Ahmadiyya. First Ahmadiyya population is only 16 million while Muslim population is about 1.6 billion. Second he doesn't like a clarification added to the same line that Ahmadis are considered non-Muslim by mainstream Islam. Eulalefty (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't a 'fringe theory' - it is a claim which is cited to a disputed source, and accordingly more of an issue for WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Giants (esotericism)[edit]

Is there any reliable sources for these esoteric giants? The sources seems to be from unreliable occult books and from the way the article is written it reads like it is claiming these giants actually exist. Quack Hunter (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

James Shelby Downard[edit]

James Shelby Downard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Conspiracy author discussed by author conspiracy authors. I could use a fresh set of eyes to remove the unreliable sources and material attributed to the unreliable sources. - Location (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a bit of promotion for his conspiracy theories and having such quotes nearly try to right the great wrongs. I am going to clean up this article and also see if any of these claims are available on reliable references, although I haven't found any yet. VandVictory (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Psychometrics[edit]

I guess Psychoanalysis industry amounts to less billions of dollars than Psychometrics industry: [1]. Despite the related RFC was closed as "exclude", it may benefit from an additional discussion with a broader participation. Logos (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is more suited to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Logos (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

John Coleman (news weathercaster)[edit]

Categorized under conspiracy theorist, John Coleman (news weathercaster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article is daily visited by a long term sock, who continues to give undue weight to opinions on global warming by adding about American Meteorological Society, even though they have no bearing on the views of Coleman. (full discussion)

Problem is with the line "The American Meteorological Society has affirmed the theory of global warming." It is irrelevant and not even used as similarly by the provided source in this context. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I have semiprotected it. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I observe more problems with this page than this sentence. It has used some references, that are unreliable for climate change. Coleman is not an academic, and he should be more identified as a conspiracy theorist and there should be one section for criticism. Kingofaces43, opinion? VandVictory (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why I was pinged to this one, but I can see some tweaking needed. I generally would just ignore edits made by a sock and discontinue the conversation. Given the context of mentioning the award he got from the AMS though and him being a fringe proponent, it would seem like due weight would call for us to just briefly mention that the AMS affirms global warming. We want to be wary about ambiguity by saying Coleman got an award and making it seem like the organization approves his viewpoint.
If the award is going to be listed, just do only that in the awards section, and briefly mention in the view on global warming section that he left the AMS because his views differed from AMS's stance that global warming is legitimate or however someone wants to word that last bit. That should be the minimum amount of content we're called to write with regards to explaining a fringe biography while not going overboard on it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Along with that, every issue has been clearly stated on the talk page as well as on the talk page of JzG.(check User_talk:JzG#John_Coleman_.28news_weathercaster.29) I do consider the harm in using sources in wrong context, that's why I mentioned the sentence above. If there are more problems with the article, they should be fixed as well. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • OccultZone. The opinion by Kingofaces43 is what I've been saying. King's opinion is also what is in the article, except for the placement. It was in the global warming section, but now awards. Source for him leaving is himself on a TV news produced video (42 seconds in). Source for AMS is the New York Times stating AMS' stance on Climate Change. (The American Meteorological Society, which confers its coveted seal of approval on qualified weather forecasters, has affirmed the conclusion of the United Nations’ climate panel that warming is occurring and that human activities are very likely the cause. In a statement sent to Congress in 2009, the meteorological society warned that the buildup of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to “major negative consequences.”) Those two sources are not being used in the wrong context. Source #1 says he left the AMS because of the AMS' stance on climate change. Source #2 gives AMS' stance on climate change thus backing up Source #1.
  • The "Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year" is the highest award given to a broadcast meteorologist in the U.S. by the most prestigious and largest meteorological society. AMS also puts on the only broadcast meteorology conference.
  • OccultZone has lied in his opening statement. This is MY edit. I am not a sock. No confirmed sock has edited the page since April 20. Only three edits by confirmed socks have been done in 2015.
  • I am a meteorologist, sort-of. I have a Bachelor's and Master's in meteorology, though I am in computers at a University's meteorology department.
  • VandVictory, do not call Coleman a "conspiracy theorist". This is not neutral. Use climate change skeptic. Also, I don't think he is in it for the money or politics, unlike Willie Soon or U.S. Republican Senators. Bgwhite (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
His views are non-scientific and promotes the Global warming conspiracy theory, it is neutral to call Coleman a conspiracy theorist. Why you are using Youtube as a reference? VandVictory (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Some sentences violated copyrights, I have uncited them and other unreferenced or poorly unreferenced. Already researched if he left AMS and why, I found nothing better than [2][3], they are not RS. VandVictory (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite, just FYI, sources such as the The Guardian and the Washington Post characterize Coleman as a conspiracy theorist. Not saying this needs to be in the article, but VandVictory's use of the term is acceptable in this case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
YouTube: It is a video produced by KUSI, San Diego and put up on YouTube by the television station. It was made while Coleman was still an employee at the station. 42 seconds into the video he tells why he left the AMS. Last time I checked, local news stations are reliable sources. Remember, we are ONLY sourcing if and why Coleman left the AMS. Coleman himself can do this just fine under WP:SELFPUB. That it happens to be produced by a television station is a bonus. VandVictory, I would appreciate if you do not remove anything while we are discussing. We don't normally remove what we are discussing. Kingofaces43 (I think) and I agree on the two sentences staying in.
Critic/Conspiracy theorist. On Wikipedia we use climate skeptics. Global warming controversy uses climate skeptic. There is Category:Climate change skeptics. People like Willie Soon, Burt Rutan and David Evans (mathematician) are labeled as skeptic. Conspiracy theorist has a negative connotation. Climate skeptic is neutral. I think we all agree here that climate change is real and the "skeptics" are wrong, but we must remain neutral in what we write. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Bgwhite it is true that these edits were originally made by a long term sock[4][5] and you went there to revert because you were wikihounding.[6] You have also spoken against the page protection, and considered JzG's remark as "attack".[7] There is no consensus for these edits, they have been removed by others all time.[8][9][10][11] It is WP:SYNTHESIS to add any views of AMS on his page, they are not in touch with Coleman nor their views have any connection,[12] when you claim Coleman stating that he left AMS because his opinion contradicted with that of AMS, you don't have to tell that AMS has affirmed the global warming theory, unless it has been similarly stated by the source but there is only a passing mention about Coleman on that article. Check WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. American Meteorological Society is scientific, while Coleman is not, simple. After reading these responses, I am not even amazed that you have used unreliable sources and you don't want to adhere to the concept of WP:FRINGE, NPOV doesn't means that you can state unscientific to be scientific. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, there's nothing wrong with using conspiracy theorist because it can be considered negative or critical. We do the same with climate change skeptic in that it means the person ignores science and is treated in the same category as quack, snake oils salesmen, conspiracy theorist, etc. Such a categorization is neutral because is a critical negative term that is warranted in this case. Either way though, the label is not important as long as there is an indication he holds a fringe viewpoint and legitimate scientific bodies indicate that holding such a viewpoint is fringe.
Occultzone, it is not a synthesis in this case to indicate the AMS position. WP:DUE calls for us to do this in the context of fringe views to make sure the mainstream view isn't obscured. When someone has a fringe view, we cannot write about that in isolation per our fringe guideline. In this case, there is the larger issue of needing to call out someone's view as essentially incorrect in the larger global warming, context, but also to make sure that the award isn't misconstrued as the AMS supporting this person's viewpiont. Issues from a fringe standpoint will be largely satisfied is those two things are addressed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 Change to "skeptic" or "conspiracy theorist" as you see fit. I'm not going to fight you there. While I don't agree, I think that is a change that can be made now.
OccultZone Kingofaces43, VandVictory (I think) and I all agree on the material should be in. We are talking here and now. Please stop making personal attacks.
VandVictory Please stop making changes on the page until we agree.
To all: VandVictory thinks the material about the AMS should be moved to the "Views on global warming" section. It was originally in that section until an IP suggested it should be in the awards section next to the AMS award. I see pros and cons to it being in both sections. Probably better next to the award for better context. Comments.... Bgwhite (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: You really shouldn't be using your admin tools in topic spaces that you're involved in. I think that should go without saying, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Admins are allowed to protect against socks and vandals. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43, do this source actually support that sentence in the same context? Either that source has to state similar or Coleman should be the main subject of that article, which he is not. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There are errors with that statement. [13] tells that 'barely half' of the meterologists of the AMS believes that global warming is occurring. It is unsure if Coleman left AMS or he was removed, because a secondary reference tells that he was 'rebuked'.[14] Should we completely get rid of those 2 sentences and just mention that he was formerly a member of AMS under the climate change section? Kingofaces, bgwhite and occultzone. Already enough amount of weight has been given to his non-mainstream views on the page. VandVictory (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
VandVictory The Forbes ref that says 'barely half' is an opinion piece. In the byline it states, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". But it also doesn't say 1/2. 1/2 gave answer A while the other gave B, C, D and E. Option B also lists human caused as a reason. How many said A and B? Ref doesn't say. That's why a better ref, which I'm sure there is one, is needed. But irregardless, the official AMS policy on global warming is happening and human caused."
For the second. The thinkprogess ref is definitely not reliable. They didn't give a source for the rebuke. Rebuke is not the same as removed. Coleman's stance on global warming is clearly not in line with the AMS official policy. Bgwhite (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
As an AMS member of several decades I'd be most surprised to find that anyone was ever removed from the society. Certainly not for simply stating their views, no matter how incorrect. The only circumstance I can imagine is an especially egregious violation of professional ethics, and I've never heard of even that. To the contrary I know of one person who was convicted of a felony yet remained a member. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't removed, you are right. He just let the membership expire.[15] VandVictory (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Not an opinion because there is a PDF file on that Forbes' reference. Coleman's stance on global warming is not in the line with AMS policy, a reference should state it. Present wording says like AMS is the only organisation that has disagreed with his views. VandVictory (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Vand, it says right at the top of article that it is an opinion, in big letters. This is similar to an op-ed in a newspaper. Both are not reliable. However, the survey you mentioned did happen. A better source is available. When I did a quick search, I came up with alot of right/left wing site arguing over it. Here is the actual survey. From the table, the 52% is misleading and is alot more complicated. But, I don't see how this is relevant to the Coleman article. Bgwhite (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
And this source is irrelevant to Coleman. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite, check WP:VERIFY. Removing the whole fringe view is another option or just keep it on views on climate, not awards. Then WP:BLUE, having an obvious stance of AMS that is not exactly supported by the source in the same context is WP:SYNTH, it also makes article look polemic. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to have to duck out of this conversation (too much on my plate right now). If folks feel they can't balance it all with WP:FRINGE in mind, I'd echo the sentiment of just removing mention of the award from the article and just focus on his views about global warming instead without having to worry about how much synthesizing we are allowed under due weight. Worry about awards when there are more to mention. That's the last other option I'm seeing at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Y'know, I've read all this thread along with the stuff at the talk page and I'm still not sure I understand the nature of the disagreement. If someone could distill it into one simple, declarative sentence it might be helpful in working toward resolution. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Short Brigade Harvester Boris The article mentioned Coleman won Broadcaster of the year award from the AMS. I added one sentence that Coleman left the AMS over AMS' stand on global warming. I also added one sentence on AMS' global warming stand. OccultZone's stance is none of it should belong and the award doesn't matter. My stance is he won the most post prestigious award a broadcast meteorologist in the U.S. can receive and he left that organization. Bgwhite (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I am also thinking about the notability of subject, check this discussion, there is no strong coverage. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Bgwhite, even though that's more than one sentence. ;-) Coleman is unquestionably notable per the big-league sources (NY Times, WaPo, etc.) Whether his resignation from AMS is noteworthy is a different question, of which I'm not altogether convinced either way although I'm leaning against due to the mostly-dodgy sources that have covered it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
With the award being mentioned, something needs to be said else it looks like the AMS is endorsing Coleman's views. The best non-neutral way I know is just to say he left the AMS because of AMS's climate change stance. I've used this analogy elsewhere... Noble prize and Oscar winners have "turned their back" on the award due to politics. This is no different. If you can think of another way, I'm all game. Bgwhite (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks[edit]

It's baaack. --Calton | Talk 21:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's also rewritten - it is now so anodyne as to be both worthless and unexceptionable. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably going to be kept. VandVictory (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversed burden of proof[edit]

Phantom time hypothesis: I reverted my own edit to here as it was pointed out this wasn't strictly allowed. You can't add a source which doesn't refer to the subject of the article. However this raises a problem I mentioned in an old essay here. "Because science generally ignores pseudoscience, it is often very difficult to find reliable sources that describe some pseudoscientific view as pseudoscientific". The esteemed Newyorkbrad has also commented likewise, saying "It is well-known in the skeptical community that there isn't clear and unambiguous scholarship refuting some of the more insane theories that are advanced, because they are sufficiently absurd on their face that no serious scholar will devote a chunk of his or her career to dealing with them. This is such a case, and the idea that Wikipedia policy requires us to treat the "Phantom time hypothesis" as a serious piece of historiography is a mistake. ".

Can I suggest a third way? Although <analogy> there aren't any source explicitly disproving the Flat Earth hypothesis, can we not gently add information about ways of proving the roundness of it? </analogy> I recently enjoyed reading Evolution of the eye, which is a good reply to creationist arguments that eyes couldn't have evolved. So would it be possible – without aiming to 'refute' PTH – to add a section about the period, mentioning Bede, the Popes who didn't exist, Johannes Scotus Eriugena etc etc. It could all be perfectly sourced, even if the facts about that period weren't established as a means of refuting the hypothesis. Peter Damian (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Both arguments of for and against would require some review, will see this one very soon. VandVictory (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Adding evidence, in any form, with the goal of refuting this conspiracy theory would run afoul of original research. It's not our role to prove or disprove anything. We should simply summarize what is covered in reliable sources. That said, the article is not properly constructed in that it presents arguments for and against as if they have equal weight. The 'for' arguments are entirely sourced to the books of the proponent of the "hypothesis". - MrX 18:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The stated aim would not be to 'refute' the theory, but simply to mention some of the events that happened in that period. Information only. Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, how would the mere statement that Anglo-Saxon chronicle was written during this period, be original research? Peter Damian (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It is no more appropriate to mention events that happened during the period in this article than it would be mention Beyoncé in the Johnny Cash article. It is off topic. The question for you then is, why would you want to mention such events in the article, if not to argue against the plausibility of the subject?- MrX 22:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If there are very ridiculous theories that haven't been given any consideration at all by the mainstream of science, then it would surely be better if we didn't include them. It is the equivalent of something that only appears in a local newspaper. By putting them in wikipedia we give them an aura of respectability. --nonsense ferret 20:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I used to think that, but then it occurred to me that one of the useful functions that Wikipedia can perform is to educate its readers. Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if the Straight Dope qualifies as a reliable source: [16]. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

StraightDope is reliable for a skeptical viewpoint, which would apply here.

I'd think that FRINGE would require us to present historical events that happened during the time. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a non-peer reviewed essay by a retired academic here, and a suitably mocking writeup in Mother Jones. Those aren't the greatest sources but they're OK here per WP:PARITY. Peter's larger point still bears discussion: what to do when a "theory" is so patently insane that no one (or almost no one) outside the wackosphere covers it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
If no one outside of the wackosphere covers it, we shouldn't have an article on it. This article should be reduced to a few sentences and merged into Historical_revisionism_(negationism), in my opinion.- MrX 02:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the sources, it's probably the best solution. --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
We can't suspend our policy on original research just because we have articles on pseudohistorical conspiracy theories. There's already sourced content about documented historical events during the period in question. Do we have so little faith in out reader's critical thinking skills that we have to violate our own policies to amplify the obvious? The real opportunity here is to restructure the article so that it doesn't read as two equal but opposite theories, rather than a fringe theory that few historians take seriously.- MrX 01:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • N seems to be the elephant in the room. If there are sufficient RS, there is an article. If it is patently absurd, someone will have raised it in context, historically. If it is contemporary FRINGE, then it is likely that there won't be RS supporting the theory without ample countervailing RS refuting it.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's still be an original synthesis under current policy. The policy would need to be changed, and it's nothing something a local consensus here could do. I would think that would apply unless you find something in any of the texts to justify it. For example, if one of the sources mentioned the Tang Dynasty and the topic, you could use other sources on the Tang dynasty to flesh out about the dynasty (just without specific extra claims about the crank idea). The general rule is that if there is not sufficient secondary sources on a topic (containing critical analysis, not just trivial coverage), it shouldn't even have an article; see WP:NFRINGE. You can also link to relevant articles in the see also section. Second Quantization (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I must disagree with Ubikwit's approach; there are any number of fringe notions which have attracted enough sympathetic coverage to make an article which apppears superficially notable and balanced (when written up by a sympathetic editor), yet have failed to attract much mainstream criticism because they're still relatively obscure, or so obviously pseudoscientific that debunking isn't worth the hassle. This is even more of a problem when we stray outside of science-related topics and look at things like international relations, history, economics &c. bobrayner (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis[edit]

Another new proponent of the hypothesis (or at least the watered-down dehydrated semi-aquatic version now current) is intent on 'fixing' the article, with unsourced claims that it is gaining scientific credibility, endorsements by Richard Attenborough etc - along with the usual sob-story on the talk page about how 'sceptics' are persecuting proponents like they used to persecute Darwin. As per usual, more eyes on the article would be appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree that there's too much undue weight. VandVictory (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
But "[o]ne only has to watch little kids on the beach"! I've reverted the recent changes because of the obvious POV-pushing but I don't think that'll be the end of it. --NeilN talk to me 14:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
And, no surprise, it's back. --NeilN talk to me 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I see edit warring. VandVictory (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Another account that hadnt edited since 2008 has joined the editwar. Weird. Somitcw (talk · contribs).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Sock I'd say, as they reverted shortly after the other editor was blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Page has duplicated a lot of content from the original references, I have linked them at Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Duplication. VandVictory (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Richard Attenborough? Shome mishtake, shurely? Paul B (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, every day you find some new form of bollocks you didn't know existed. Only two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not certain about the universe. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Dunn[edit]

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

I am not sure how this article has survived so long because there appears to be literally no notable or reliable sources for his ideas, this is probably why not a single reliable source has been added to the article in years. I would appreciate someone putting it up for a deletion. Quack Hunter (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I, too, cannot find any coverage about the author or his book in reliable secondary sources. Anyone have any success finding anything worthy of note? - Location (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No RS sources for a bio of Dunn. Also noted on Talkpage that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article. Redirected to Pyramidology#Advanced_technology where he is mentioned along with other fringe theory proponents. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice, work. Thanks for helping with this. Quack Hunter (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Dione[edit]

I am trying to fix up some of these ancient astronaut proponent articles but this one seems to be problematic. There are no in depth critical sources that discuss his beliefs, the way the article stands is extremely unbalanced like an advert in favor for some of his strange ideas. Quack Hunter (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a couple refs to help make it clear that Dione's views are discussed in academic circles as an example of fringe ufo beliefs. Noticed Morris K. Jessup as an EL. Someone should look into that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ancient astronaut hypothesis, Black Knight satellite, etc.[edit]

62.172.176.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User edit-warring to remove mainstream viewpoint from various articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. Both Gamaliel and I have warned the IP; I tried to explain about WP:UNDUE, since they seem to think articles should be equally balanced between science and pseudoscience. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC).
Update: That particular IP has stopped, but 217.43.13.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may well be the same person. JzG has semi'd Ancient astronaut hypothesis and I've semi'd Black Knight satellite. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC).
We'll call it a draw, shall we? Guy (Help!) 13:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Extropianism and other transhumanist enterprises[edit]

Do we have enough of a group to tackle the walled garden to end-all walled gardens? The transhumanist collective?

I'll start with an article I looked into earlier today:

This led me to

Are all these institutes notable?

jps (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely. Here's how you can tell if a gerontologist is a fraud: if he mentions life extension, he's a fraud. The life extension cranks have had their way on Wikipedia for years, because basically nobody gives a damn. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Guy is wise.
As it stands, I think one of those organisations fails the GNG, another is borderline, and the rest... well, they have abundant in-universe sources. bobrayner (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Checking the refs on Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, can you find a single one that is actually about the article subject? So far I find only namechecks, not more than one per article. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There was the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity which may explain why this forest of poor sourcing exists, but apparently no one has actually done anything about this. I'm not sure I'm ready to dip my toe in. Should we try a trial deletion discussion or should we go full tilt? I'm sure there is a lot more related to these topics. jps (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Alcor at least is notable - I know of it from the mainstream press coverage it's received (examples: LA Times, Arizona Republic, Google News). The article really needs those secondary sources though; from a quick look at the reference list, roughly half the article's references come back to Alcor itself. Kolbasz (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh[edit]

Dean Ornish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a steaming pile of fetid dingo's kidneys, and the tags at the top, while amply justified by the content, are a WP:BLP nightmare. Unfortunately I don't have enough subject mattr knowledge to fix it. Anyone? Guy (Help!) 11:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)