Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Cult archaeology alert

This Friday night the History Channel presents 'America Unearthed' "n AMERICA UNEARTHED, forensic geologist Scott Wolter, a real-life Indiana Jones, will reveal that the history we all learned in school may not always be the whole story. Across the country, ancient symbols, religious relics and unexplained artifacts suggest that civilizations from around the world have left their mark for us to find today. Wolter not only digs through the surprising burial ground that is America for arcaheological secrets, but he also uncovers compelling evidence that pre-dates the official "discovery" of the New World and turns a lot of what we think we know about American history on its head. America Unearthed proves there is a lot we don't know about our past, and that people have gone to great lengths to cover up these mysteries."[1]. It will also include claims that the Mayas visited Georgia. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow. When did the H Channel change from trying to be truthful to trying to find a new low in pseudo-documentary? I remember when you could watch fairly accurate programs on that channel. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed that the History Television we get in Canada was basically the same as your History Channel—but now I wonder, because “trying to be truthful” seems quite uncharacteristic of the former. Their schedule is dominated by stuff like extraterrestrial interventions à la Von Daniken; Bible stories; imagined combat between, say, Vikings and samurai; WWII documentaries that are mostly a vehicle for low-budget CGI of tanks blowing up; “reality TV” featuring various dangerous occupations; several series about finding, assessing & haggling over antiques & curios … Not to say they don’t carry any worthwhile historical programmes, but these are pretty few & far between.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

They are probably concerned about these numbers. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@Binksternet Supposedly ~2007 but I could have sworn it was earlier. (Edit: did not intend a pun on the previous user's username!) a13ean (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a funny image, but I would criticize it for not emphasizing Hitler in the first five years, too. The H Channel was, during that time when I was watching it the most, what my wife called "All Hitler, All The Time".™ Ask her, she'll back me up. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Great Scott has his own page Scott F. Wolter. He seems to be a 'theorist' of the Kensington Rune Stone. Oh, and the Knights Templar were involved,... but I guess that goes without saying really. [2] Paul B (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would the Mayas not have visited Georgia? Is it a big deal whether they did or didn't? Of course the programme sounds like rubbish and shouldn't be used as a source in the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it even means for the "Mayas" to "visit" Georgia (one has an image of Mr and Mrs Maya on holiday). Of course some form of trading contact is not especially unlikely, but it's just that the Mayans, like the Knights Templar, tend to carry with them all sorts of emblematic significance, which makes boring tangental trading links turn into Something Really Meaningful That Changes Our Whole View of History. Paul B (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if this man's page actually said what his qualifications are (if any). Does anyone know? Deb (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't find them on his company's website, which I find strange. I find the company strange too; at first glance it is a dull engineering company testing concrete, but then it is also involved in the Newport Tower and other fringe archaeology. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually at least as concerned about the Maya stuff. It's edits like this one [3] that I'm concerned about. How Thornton managed to get the History Channel interested in him I'm not sure. His book is self-published. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is now an edit war in which a new account, who appears to be claiming to be Wolter himself, is removing all criticism. Paul B (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've raised him at COIN and he says he's complaining to Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And now warned him about 3RR after his 3rd revert. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, if that really is him, his comments indicate that he's not exactly a rocket scientist (in addition to not being an archaeologist). Deb (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

... yet again. "Restoring balance", not-remotely-MEDRS compliant sources, baroque displays of straw men, etc, etc. Skinwalker (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Could someone else take a look at Special:Contributions/Pottinger's_cats and tell me if they notice a pattern? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Deyermenjian

I'm not convinced this guy meets our notability criteria. If you look for him in Google books you find mention of his name in various fringe books, but not much else. He is used, or rather I think misused, in a variety of articles. Ran into this when I found the website [yurileveratto.com/] being spammed which led me to a group of non-notable articles - Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress - all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratt and his personal website which I am taking to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how big this problem is, but I also found an article on Paititi, which features a lot of editing by these two:

• Gregdeyermenjian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paititi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And we have another pair of articles, Labyrinth City and Petroglyphs of Quiaca, largely edited by this fellow:

• Franciscos58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

which I see Doug has also sent off to AfD. There's a whole lot of promotion going on here, it seems. I have to wonder about the whole thing given that the one obvious hit GScholar produces for Yuri Leveratto is in a book on ancient astronauts, in Italian. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article Paititi is full of promotional stuff without independent sources. My guess is that we have at the most 2 editors here and some socks including IPs. The articles created by Paititi (talk · contribs) look problematic. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Every time I look again, I find more affected articles and more IPs. For example, Paititi also created Pusharo, and lo and behold, it has Deyermenjian's name in it and Levaratto's website as a source. And here we have Paratoari, created by the user and with the same names and links. I think we really need a subject expert here who knows the field, because I just don't know how much of this is simply promotion of material that may eventually become important, and how much of it is pure puffery, and how much of it is woo-woo junk. So far I don't see a lot that forces me to believe the last of it, but it's obvious that Deyermenjian and/or Leveratto are behind these edits. Mangoe (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We also have 190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs) adding like to various Leveratto websites. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped messages on a couple of noticeboards looking for experts. My reading from this is that this material isn't fringey, but it's probably not up to the level of meeting out inclusion standards. Leveratto is harder to puzzle out but it's pretty clear that there's no possibility that he's notable, and that his various red-linked appearances here could go away. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveratto is certainly fringe:[4] "as we know, the Middle Eastern world was in contact with the New World from the time of the Sumerians (see my articles on the Fuente Magna and the Monolith Pokotia). Then South America was visited and partially explored by the Phoenicians (see my article on the Petroglyph Ingá) and megalithic peoples (see my article on Calcoene cromlech). It is then the possibility that Middle Eastern peoples and then have Carthaginians explored the interior of the continent (see my articles on the Cave of the Manuscript Tayos and 512)." (Google translation from the Spanish version of his website). David Childress seems to have worked with Deyermanjian. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

New article Yuri Leveratto

Coincidence? Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Leveratto. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Rod (optics)

Claims that rods have been "discovered" in Malaysia published a few days ago in a Malaysian newspaper have been added as "new information" to the article. I believe this material was added in good faith, so I've left it in, slightly expanded for context. However after carefully reading the story, I find its claims to be wildly uncharacteristic of a WP:RS reliable source. It states as fact that "rods" have never been physically or scientifically explained, that insects have no ability to turn at extreme speed, and names someone called "Matthew Lazenby @ Jigger" as the discoverer of such wisdom. My instinct at this point is to remove this questionable "report" from the article, but I can't tell if the source, dailyexpress.com, is actually a reliable source, or the Malaysian equivalent of the Weekly World News. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be reliable for general news, but newspapers are poor sources for science at the best of time, but properly that's an issue for another board. I think we can assume that Mr Lazenby@Jigger did actually photograph the rods and make the claims he is reported to have done. I'm inclined to leave it in because it gives an insight into the attitudes of crypotozoologists about this phenomenon. The rational explanation for Rods is explained clearly enough. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who chooses to ignore it in preference to Mr Lazenby@Jigger's apparent belief that a colony of Rods are living in an Indonesian cave is free to do so. You can take a reader to the Pierian Spring, but you can't make them drink. Paul B (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but the consistent major grammatical errors in the Daily Express story bother me. They indicate a bad English translation of some other language, probably Malay. Who knows what original meanings have been altered by these errors? I would tend to consider it, on the whole, unreliable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Crop circles

The article Crop circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has, for as long as I can remember, been a battleground. Every time we pare it back to reflect the views of the reality-based community (circles are almost all man-made as pranks, those which are not have prosaic explanations), along come the "cereologists" to promote the idea that the scientific consensus view is in some way controversial - what Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. described as "the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it."

Latest problem user is Stochastikos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has virtually no contributions to Wikipedia other than to try to boost the paranormal side in the crop circle article.

I am now warning him that per previous consensus, continuing in the same vein may get him topic-banned form crop circle and potentially any other article on fringe science or pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This raises another, broader issue. What do we do with pages that are an attractive nuisance for True Believers? Most of the folks who hang around the Fringe Theories Noticeboard are interested in how Wikipedia handles many different pseudoscience topics but are not particularly eager to make a career out of one particular page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is but the symptom of a deeper phenomenon. Think of it this way:

• Inherently, Wikipolicies encourage both openness and the expenditure of effort. Hence UFO, free energy, crop circle advocates etc. are free to edit, regardless of how many beers they have had that night.

• As the number of articles increase, less and less of these articles can be watched by the 3,000 or so high frequency editors, and the 30,000 or so mid frequency editors. That ratio has plummeted by over 300% since 2007. In fact the drop is 340% (3.2 / 0.92) for the high frequency editors, per number of Wikipages.

• Rfc/U attempts are very time consuming, so only the most extreme cases get handled.

Unless something changes (and I do not know how) fringe will walk in by persistence. It is a simple ratio-based fact. There at least 500 fringe topics (but over 1,000 is more realistic) and dozens of people around the world who support each fringe item. That means that in time 5,000 fringe advocates may show up, at least. The blood sweat and tears to leave them WP:OR messages is just not there, as 30,000 new articles get added every month There was some fellow who kept saying that the Chinese pyramids are Turkish, and he may yet add that all over the place - there are just not enough editors to watch over him. And I do not know of a solution that can be agreed to by the community at large. History2007 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I agree. I keep running into fringe stuff I never heard of in my field of interest (archaeology), such as the Leveratto stuff above, and I'm considered to be a bit of an expert on this. For those who have the time, User:AlexNewArtBot can be useful, I'll be monitoring User:AlexNewArtBot/ArchaeologySearchResult for instance. And the last RfC/U case you and I were involved in was successful beyond expectations, but Paul Bedson's threat to sock will be difficult to combat. Back to cooking Christmas dinner now. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the last Rfc/U worked, but because the three of you spent so much effort on it - I spent very little time on there, however. And the fact is that there is no way in the world 5,000 Rfc/Us can be performed for all the up and coming fringe lovers, and their sockpuppets. And let us remember that the effort to monitor paid advocacy by PR firms is diluting conscientious editor resources - not to mention all the BLP issues that eat time like Pac-man, etc. So there is a serious shortage of editor resources.

As a social experiment Wikipedia has been widely successful in getting information on "less than controversial" common knowledge topics such as cities, rivers, lakes, etc. But along with the openness came the fringe advocates. That may be part of the nature of crowd-sourced open systems. I do not know how that can be avoided now. I am not even sure if WMF or the highly active Wikipedians have any possible solution to this, or that in the midst of all the paid-advocacy issues this problem is even within their attention span. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Compared to the rest of the web and the blogosphere, wikipedia is a great success in keeping fringe stuff under control. I think we're doing ok Bhny (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, we certainly are doing well. On the other hand, watching trends, predicting future problems and trying to head them off at the pass is a Good Thing. On the third hand, prediction is hard; if someone had described Wikipedia to me and asked if I thought it would work I would have predicted failure with the vandals and trolls and spammers destroying everything, as happened on USENET.

The best thing to do is to keep using this noticeboard to bring attention to any problem articles, continue dealing with fringe pushing editors as we have been doing, and keeping an eye out and commenting on any policy changes that may may this easier or harder. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

My post was probably getting somewhat off topic for this board, whose aim is to alert people. Yet, I think it is good to have a big picture as one does things. So I will stop now, after pointing out a couple of issues. Regarding Bhny's comment, yes, Wikipedia is absolutely better than the chaos called the websphere where Elvis is still alive and making crop circles. But I do not have (and do not know of anyone who does) any idea of how rampant fringe is within Wikipedia and how it will compares to tightly managed systems such as Quora. Only time will tell. Regarding Guy's point about persisting on this board, I totally support any effort to fend off fringe. Yet I think we do need to be realistic. So again, only time will tell, but I have for long hoped (and suggested on WP:VP, etc.) for much less tolerance for fringe, and faster expulsion via "rapid Rfc/U" for persistent fringe editors. But one thing I am ready to bet on: given the diverse nature of editor views, major Wiki-policy changes are pretty hard to implement now. History2007 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a project?

I wondering if it might be helpful to create a fringe theory wikiproject under whose auspices this noticeboard would then be placed, and which could tag articles as being under its purview. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience appears to partially fit the bill, but it's only semi-active. A lot of fringe theories (e.g. JFK conspiracy theories, theories about Masons secretly ruling the world) aren't pseudoscience, exactly, so the project doesn't have the same scope as this board. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if a new flag and national anthem will do anything as long as there are too few people - Luxembourg is no threat to anyone. The challenge is having more sober people than fringers. Here are your active members anyway. Now, how many fringers are out there? History2007 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It takes about 3-4 editors to undo the damage caused by a single fringe-proponent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At a minimum, case in point ... Given the current laid back policies, there is just no way to stop them without blood, sweat and tears. No way... History2007 (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Pseudoscience wikiproject does include some very active editors - the problem is that nowadays there is little work which needs coordinating in the way that many other projects work. Editors dealing with pseudoscience either work solo or they discuss issues on noticeboards like this one - so the project pages are relatively quiet. Not dead; just sleeping. If we do need to use a wikiproject, use the Pseudoscience wikiproject instead of creating a new one... bobrayner (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fringe archaeology AfDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeira Fortress
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Leveratto
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroglyphs of Quiaca
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruins of Miraflores
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labyrinth City
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinchera Fortress
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ixiamas Fortress

Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)

Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)

Cholo50 (talk · contribs)

Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)

190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)

190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)

190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)

190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)

186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. I've edited your post above as {{user|186.115.57.7}} allows direct access to contributions. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archeologo40. I've found another account and more IPs. One editor used a photo one minute after Leveratto uploaded it. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I had forgotten about the "|" trick. (Insert off-topic rant about every website coming up with a different "simplified" alternative to real HTML and then expanding it until it is more complex than HTML here...) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Domicile (astrology)

Yet another astrology fork: Domicile (astrology) - and the only source cited is a entirely unremarkable website [5] with no indication of why it should have any particular credibility, even to the 'believers'. If 'domicile' in this context means something different from 'House (astrology)', it is unclear, and the latter article at least cites a few more sources. I can see no reason why the former article couldn't be merged into 'house' - or at least, the parts from 'domicile' which can actually be sourced to something better than 'some bloke on the internet'. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems to have lain dormant in the literature until a 1996 translation of Initiation Astrologique, a posthumous work by Papus published in 1920. You can see here that this system is documented there. I've found a very few earlier references that suggest association between the planets and particular signs, and there are other books published earlier in the 1990s which seem to use the same terms, but this is the first work I see that really lays out the system. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to not meet the requirements in WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The single source provided is insufficient, but the concept has been pretty widely discussed in astrological literature—albeit not always using the term “domicile”. AIUI it has nothing to do with houses—as the lead does indicate—but with the supposed affinities or antipathies between planets and signs.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Gérard Encausse/Papus

First, I'm inclined to move this bio back to Papus given that this is the common name used to refer to this seminal hermeticism proponent. Second, the article is rather sad, and is at present dominated by a "just-so" story about how he predicted the death of Tsar Nicholas II. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The 2006 move has the following comment: "Moved Papus to Gerard Encausse: Encausse is most often referred to by his civil name rather than his magical motto." The default is to call people by their actual name. We need a good reason before we use a magical nickname. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the move comment is incorrect. A quick Google showed about four times as many hits on his nom de plume as on his legal name. Also, here we have an obituary from the British Medical Journal [6] which states that "He was better known by his adopted name of 'Papus' than by his own." Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

A few extra eyes on James H. Fetzer would be appreciated as there have been a few recent attempt to add unreliable and primary source material to the article. Thanks! Location (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Contribution history of today's editor in this article, ISP 24.177.119.16, indicates Fetzer is editing his own article again. (diff) Location (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing issues discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#EA WorldView and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors. Location (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychotronics

Psychotronics was recently (re)created following an Articles for Creation request, and apparently translated from the Spanish although the Spanish article is a lot shorter. From a (very) quick glance, it looks OK with properly formatted references etc. But it's appallingly badly written, filled with typical fringe bollocks and, most importantly, draws on a host of sources which I don't think are likely to be held up to be reliable. Some of the sources are published books but, for example, published by "The Theosophical Publishing House".

I feel the entire article is beyond salvation and just needs deleting as fringe-cruft, but am getting bogged down in trying to work out what is reliable, if anything.

Perhaps someone else could take a look at it? GDallimore (Talk) 01:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfect candidate for WP:BLOWITUP. I removed a few unreliable sources and the information that was attributed to them. Lots more to do. Location (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is is mostly WP:OR based on sources that are either irrelevant, misused, summarized in badly fractured English, or blatant mind control conspiracy fringe websites like "mindjustice.org". Reminds me a lot of Ethereal Being. WP:TNT applies here, the best thing to do would be to restore the original redirect to parapsychology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Also from the same user: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MindGuard_(software). - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Complete and utter bollocks. Not worth wasting time over. AFD, and watch it WP:SNOW, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Kill it. Kill it with fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Having gone through the full list of 54 references cited, I actually found two reliable ones which give an interesting perspective on the history of psychotronics. I've tried to salvage the article for now. GDallimore (Talk) 11:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I see that the article Parapsychology, is still changing since the beggining (17:04, September 29, 2001), even quite naively nowadays, up to a quite prolonged edition, please see: [7], and its unreliable references 127-129... perhaps the article Parapsychology is not the best reference to accude after deleting mine, which has been criticized because of mistakes such as those already mentioned by GDallimore... aside that possibility of deletion, realize that Psychotronics is a topic that deserves special attention due to the extension of the other topic. I insist that Wikipedians must be restricted to the same policies, in order to edit parallely the same Wikipedia. I disagree to GDallimore, in starting the article according to your point of view about "Psychotronics"... it was accepted and rated as C-Class by SarahStierch, it wasn't so wrong!.. you already deleted even the patents!..--Paritto (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The current state of the article indicates some of the problems with an over-rigid reliance on the - understandable - approach that only "officially" reliable sources should be used. It attributes psychotronics to a Canadian doctor. The real history is not difficult to uncover. The problem is that much of it is only citable to parapsychological literature or supportive books about it. The concept was created by cold-war Czech researchers as part of an attempt to create a "materialist" form of parapsychology with machinery that would direct "psychokinetic" and other such supposed activity. It appears that some of these techniques were linked to non-mystical ideas about mind-body interaction, which is partly because of the anti-religious bias and philosophical materialism of Marxism, but it also fed into the development of western psychiatry moving away from Freudian ideas. It's certainly a legitimate topic for an article. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a 1st paragraph about Zdeněk Rejdák, so I hope it now has the "real history" Bhny (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(Off topic comment moved to my talk page) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Lane (author)

A statement in Mark Lane (author) reads:

After the Warren Commission Report was published in September 1964, Mark Lane interviewed numerous witnesses who were ignored by the Commission, and then used these interviews and evidence from the Commission's report to published an indictment of the Commission, entitled Rush to Judgment.

In this context, "ignored", means "intentionally disregarded", implying that the Warren Commission was involved in a conspiracy to suppress evidence regarding the assassination of JFK. I have attempted in different ways to change "ignore" to "not interviewed" or attribute the term "ignored" to the original author from which the statement was taken (i.e. R. Andrew Kiel in J. Edgar Hoover. The Father of the Cold War. How His Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup and Escalation of the Vietnam War) with no success. Good luck finding information on Kiel to determine if he is an expert on Hoover, but from the snippets that can be gleaned within GoogleBooks, the book does appear to be conspiracy oriented. [Edit: All I can find on Kiel is that he "teaches United States History at a senior high school in Ohio".] Ideas on how this should be addressed? Location (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No conceivable source could possibly support using "ignore" instead of "not interviewed". "Not interviewed" is factual and encyclopedic (assuming of course that the sources say they were not interviewed), but "ignored" implies a value judgement -- it implies that they should have been interviewed. Wikipedia can report that source X says that they should have been interviewed, but we cannot present what is essentially an opinion in Wikipedia's voice as if it were an established fact. I am going to check the references again and then change it to "not interviewed". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I made that change, but I can see that there are a lot more issues with that page. I suggest filing a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (Be sure to carefully read the Guide for Participants at the top) and see if it can be resolved that way. (Note: I am a dispute resolution volunteer at DRN, but of course I won't be working this case because I am not an uninvolved editor) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, the Bold change was made, Reverted, and now a Discussion has been initiated (although why it was started in this venue I do not understand). The cited source states this:

After the Warren Commission's final report was completed in September 1964, Lane interviewed numerous witnesses ignored by the Commission.

The source uses the word "ignored", thereby conveying reasoned intent (as opposed to simply overlooking some witnesses by chance), whereas your proposed change conveys something completely different, and thus would require a citation to a different reliable source. We don't cite a source that says one thing, yet convey something completely different in our Wikipedia article. The Kiel source does not appear to be "essentially an opinion" piece on its face, so I must assume you are questioning what this source conveys due to the existence of reliably sourced information to the contrary. If that is the case, could someone please produce that source here for review? It would be a simple matter to check the source(s) that support the change you are proposing, and add that citation to the article. Alternatively, if you are questioning the reliability of the Kiel source itself, that concern should be raised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Location was right to bring this issue up here at the fringe theories noticeboard, and his comment

"I have attempted in different ways to change 'ignore' to 'not interviewed' or attribute the term 'ignored' to the original author from which the statement was taken (i.e. R. Andrew Kiel in J. Edgar Hoover. The Father of the Cold War. How His Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup and Escalation of the Vietnam War) with no success"

Is accurate. I just tried myself to make the same changes and was reverted by an editor who appears to only edit political articles. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but doing that sort of editing tends to instill bad habits; if every day you end up undoing all sorts of bogus info inserted into political articles by POV pushers, you might end up treating non-political editors who are just trying to deal with fringe theories on Wikipedia the same way.

In essence what we are being asked to accept here is the fringe views contained in a book with "How the Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup" in the title being presented in Wikipedia's voice as if they were established facts. This is exactly the sort of thing this noticeboard was created to deal with.

I would like to ask the other regular noticeboard participants to weigh in here. Am I wrong in my conclusions above? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "ignored" is a major problem. It does have negative connotations, but I don't think it necessarily implies active intention. It might imply sloppiness, lack of time, or indeed sensible selection of people based on the relevance of their evidence. I am concerned about the book itself (published by something called "university Press of America", which offers a "streamlined" decision making on publication [8]. Xenophrenic seems to think that if a source is deemed "reliable" in a generic sense its assertions have to be accepted as uncontested fact. That's almost never the case. Paul B (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I found a direct interview with Lane which starts here and runs on for some pages. Lane certainly says that the commission ignored some of what some witnesses said, and de Antonio says that they (in doing the film the two of them worked on) found "whole worlds that the Warren Commission missed" (p. 176) and found a witness that the commission supposedly said doesn't exist. My impression is that their condemnation of the commission's work in gathering evidence is too comprehensive to be summarized in a choice between two words. On the other hand I'm very uncomfortable casting any of this in anything other than "he claims that" language.

Also, Kiel's book has next to no footprint. Of the five reviews on Amazon, three are gibberish. University Press of America is, at least if you believe this discussion from the fora at The Chronicle of Higher Education, a vanity press; I've found other academics who say the same thing. I would not consider him to be a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the post where User:Location started this thread, he (and I) have no problem with Wikipedia saying that Lane says that the commission ignored some witnesses. What we both have a problem with is with User:Xenophrenic making Wikipedia say that the commission ignored some witnesses, as he did here, even going so far as to misstate Wikipedia policy in his edit summary. Having Wikipedia say that the commission ignored some witnesses violates Wikipedia policy on fringe theories, which is the reason why we are discussing it here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to address an earlier reversion by Xenophrenic (who, incidentally, I believe was acting in good faith) that included the statement "you don't attribute a statement of fact as if it were not" and citing WP:YESPOV: "you don't attribute a statement of fact as if it were not". That part of policy refers to five principles to follow: 1) "Avoid stating opinions as facts." 2) "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." 3) "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion." 4) "Prefer nonjudgmental language." 5) "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." If "the Warren Commission ignored witnesses" is an opinion, it must be attributed. If it is a statement of fact, it is "seriously contested". While it may give too much weight to someone with only high school teaching credentials, I am OK with it's current version attributing the opinion to Kiel. Location (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already raised this on the talk page. The problem seemsd to be that Xenophrenic takes "avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion" to imply that there should be a reliable source specifically contesting the claim, otherwise any assertion is an "uncontested factual assertion". This interpretation would create a serious problem with fringe theories which are not typically discussed in every detail in reliable sources. But even quite normal speculations and theorisations by historians should usually be attributed and we should use common sense to distinguish theory and opinion from simple facts. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just tried myself to make the same changes and was reverted by an editor who appears to only edit political articles ... doing that sort of editing tends to instill bad habits --Guy Macon

Wow. You really went there? I'm going to remind you once, nicely, to please refrain from commenting on editors. When I'm not editing articles the likes of Chuck E. Cheese's or Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire, or arguing vociferously against editors at the Conspiracy theory article who are attempting to legitimize their crackpot and extreme theory-crafting, I do indeed dabble in controversial political subject matter. That experience has taught me that when an editor can't make a reasoned argument about content and edits, and instead resorts to attacking editors, nothing good will follow. Let's not do that again, okay?

• Xenophrenic seems to think that if a source is deemed "reliable" in a generic sense its assertions have to be accepted as uncontested fact. --Paul B

Correction: Xenophrenic does not seem to think that. Xenophrenic thinks that if an apparently reliable source is not determined to be unreliable, and an assertion from that source stands uncontradicted by other reliable sources, the assertion should be accepted as uncontested fact. See the difference? So either show that the (Kiel) source doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, or produce a reliable source that conveys different or contrary information. (You'll note that I already suggested this above.)

• What we both have a problem with is with User:Xenophrenic ... even going so far as to misstate Wikipedia policy in his edit summary. --Guy Macon

Correction: No, I did not misstate Wikipedia policy. Policy says that we do not present fact as opinion (and "attributing" an assertion as "According to 'source'..." conveys that it is merely opinion held by that source). I see that you omitted an explanation of how I "misstated" policy, so I anxiously look forward to your justification.

• But even quite normal speculations and theorisations by historians should usually be attributed and we should use common sense to distinguish theory and opinion from simple facts. --Paul B

That is an interesting assertion. I doubt that I would have taken issue with the attribution of information from Kiel if similar attribution was applied to content in the article from Bugliosi, Moore, et al. But it wasn't. And since no one has raised the reliability issue of Kiel at WP:RSN, nor provided sourced information contradicting Kiel (and Lane, and de Antonio, and others?), there appears to me to be a selective application of "common sense" here.

Please note that I share some of the concerns expressed above about the author (Kiel - not exactly widely published), the book (with its provocative title), and the publisher (a 'University' press not tied to a specific university?) -- but at the same time, it can be said that the source is from an academic, published by a specialist in "high-quality research and textbooks", and is heavily annotated and footnoted with an almost 100-page bibliography. You really should raise the reliability concern in the appropriate venue. Also, please note that the content under discussion asserts merely that the WC bypassed certain witness testimony for whatever reasons (and Paul B mentions several probable ones above), and does not state or imply that the WC did so as part of a "conspiracy to suppress evidence", as suggested above.

• I would like to ask the other regular noticeboard participants to weigh in here. --Guy Macon

I would like to second that request. In addition, I would like to remind editors to refrain from making edits on the material being discussed while issues and concerns remain unresolved. If your need to edit war is that great, while an unconcluded discussion is ongoing, perhaps a diversion is in order. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: "And since no one has raised the reliability issue of Kiel at WP:RSN, nor provided sourced information contradicting Kiel (and Lane, and de Antonio, and others?), there appears to me to be a selective application of 'common sense' here." Given the hundreds if not thousands of very specific claims that have been leveled against the Warren Commission by various critics, it's conceivable that you will not find a specific rebuttal for each and every one. Do other reliable sources think the Warren Commission was acting in good faith? Of course. (Here is one from the HSCA.) It is a huge contradiction to believe that the Commission acted in good faith but also intentionally and deliberately disregarded certain witnesses for nefarious reasons.

Also, if we are in agreement that "the WC bypassed certain witness testimony for whatever reasons", then the neutral words for that are "not interviewed"... not "ignored". The terms imply different things.Location (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is a huge contradiction to believe that the Commission acted in good faith but also intentionally and deliberately disregarded certain witnesses for nefarious reasons.

That is a contradiction you have fabricated out of whole cloth. There is no indication in the text under discussion that the Commission acted "for nefarious reasons". Perhaps you are reading too much into it? As for your linked source that says "The committee found that the Commission acted in good faith, and the mistakes it made were those of men doing their best under difficult circumstances", it also criticizes,

"the failure of the commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government" ... "the committee concluded that the Warren Commission failed in significant areas to investigate 'all the facts and circumstances' surrounding the tragic events in Dallas ... the committee made the judgment that the time pressures under which the Warren Commission investigation was conducted served to compromise the work product and the conclusions of the Commission ... The committee also discovered certain basic deficiencies in the capacity of the Commission to investigate effectively the murder of a President. ... The committee found, further, that the Commission consciously decided not to form its own staff of professional investigators, choosing instead to rely on an analysis by its lawyers of the investigative reports of Federal agencies, principally the FBI and CIA ... the Commission did not take advantage of all the legal tools available to it ... failed to utilize the instruments of immunity from prosecution and prosecution for perjury with respect to witnesses whose veracity it doubted ...the Commission should have candidly acknowledged the limitations of its investigation and denoted areas where there were shortcomings ... As the committee's investigation demonstrated, substantive new information has been developed in many areas since the Warren Commission completed its work. In conclusion, the committee found that the Warren Commission's investigation was conducted in good faith, competently, and with high integrity, but that the Warren Report was not, in some respects, an accurate presentation of all the evidence available to the Commission or a true reflection of the scope of the Commission's work, particularly on the issue of possible conspiracy in the assassination. It is a reality to be regretted that the Commission failed to live up to its promise."

Your linked source acknowledges the very deficiencies conveyed by the Kiel source.

• if we are in agreement...

But, you see, we are not -- hence our discussion here. The neutral and encyclopedic way to convey what a reliable source says is to convey what the reliable source says, and not a personally preferable euphemism we devise. Please use common sense and good editorial judgement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the above request: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mark Lane .2F R. Andrew_Kiel. Location (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Xenphrenic "corrects" my comment above by saying "Xenophrenic thinks that if an apparently reliable source is not determined to be unreliable, and an assertion from that source stands uncontradicted by other reliable sources, the assertion should be accepted as uncontested fact." Then Xenophrenic is wrong- for reasons I have already given. If we requiore a reliable source to specifically contradict each individual assertion we will be in fringe-theory-heaven. This is exactly why I said what I did about your "apparent" views: "Xenophrenic takes "avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion" to imply that there should be a reliable source specifically contesting the claim, otherwise any assertion is an "uncontested factual assertion". This interpretation would create a serious problem with fringe theories which are not typically discussed in every detail in reliable sources." You have just confirmed that you believe just that. We cannot adopt such a mechanistic approach. It is unworkable. All you need is a generically reliable source - such as the newspaper recently discussed here on the subject of Flying Rods. As long as it has not been specifically contradicted, then LO AND BEHOLD, you can present the cave-colony of Flying Rods as uncontested fact - according to the gospel of Xenophrenic. Paul B (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This one is a no-brainer. Xenophrenic is wrong, for the reasons stated by Location, Guy Macon and Paul B, and, I've reverted to the neutral presentation, attributing Kiel's opinion to Kiel. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have requested temporary full protection of the page so that the edit warring stops while we discuss these issues. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request that this conversation be narrowed to a discussion of how we at Wikipedia should handle fringe views concerning the Warren Commission, with a possible expansion into a discussion of how we at Wikipedia should handle fringe political views in general. Several of the issues brought up by Xenophrenic above are outside of the scope of the fringe theories noticeboard. I advise not responding here to these off-topic side issues even if you believe that they are incorrect. I advise instead discussing the reliability of the sources on the reliable sources noticeboard, discussing the content or the article on the article talk page, and refocusing this thread on a discussion of Wikipedia should handle fringe views concerning the Warren Commission and other political fringe views. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

Editing at this crapola Discovery Channel exposé is threatening to pick up again. Really it needs to be run over with a lawnmower as I am guessing right off the bat that nobody in the field really takes the claims seriously. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That Englishman John Wilkins invented the metric system

I am concerned that an uncorroborated 2007 interpretation of a small subset of the works of John Wilkins, a 17th century English clergyman and natural philosopher, by the late Pat Naughtin, an Australian metrication campaigner also known as Mr. Metrication, is being used (both directly and indirectly) to support the notion that the present day metric system was invented, not by the French at the end of the 18th century as is the traditional and mainstream historical view, but by the said John Wilkins in the mid 17th century.

My curiosity was aroused yesterday when I came across the claim in the "International System of Units" article that those in France who developed the metric system in the 1790s "used a number of principles first proposed by the English cleric John Wilkins in 1668". This assertion was not supported by the cited reference, which was actually a citation referring to a scanned copy of part of a 1668 essay by Wilkins, and a "translation" of it by Pat Naughtin - hosted on the "Metric Matters" website, the website of the said Pat Naughtin. I then decided to look for other links to John Wilkins.

Next I came across him in "Metric system". In the history section there I found this: "The idea of a metric system was proposed by John Wilkins, first secretary of the Royal Society of London in 1668." This was again accompanied by a cite of Pat Naughtin's scan and "translation" of part of Wilkins's essay and also by a cite linking to a BBC video reporting that Naughtin claimed to have discovered, in an ancient book, that Wilkins had invented the metric system. This was now getting even more intriguing.

I also found similar claims, supported only by Naughtin's "translation" or the BBC report about it in "Metre", "History of the metric system", "England" and "Kilogram" and totally unsupported in "Lists of British inventions".

In each of those articles I tried to "neutralise" or water-down the claims for Wilkins's role, leaving the possibility that he had described a decimal system, but removing the (explicit and implicit) implications that he had invented the actual metric system of today. This didn't go down too well with another editor though, who came back with some other references. Each of the new references though, either drew directly from Naughtin's interpretation of Wilkins's essay, or indirectly via the website of the UK Metric Association (a single-issue metrication pressure group) who cite Naughtin's interpretation.

I would like to hear the opinions of those here as to whether Naughtin's interpretation of Wilkins's work (and direct and indirect references to it) should be deemed to be a fringe view or whether it can now be accepted as the mainstream view on this important aspect of the history of the metric system.

MeasureIT (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)