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.
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. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Whitewashing in film

Article uses American tabloid/clickbait websites as "reliable sources" to call Cleopatra a non-white (an anachronistic tag anyway). This is against general academic consensus that Cleopatra was from a heavily inbred Greek family, and also plays into the fringe Afrocentric theories of Egypt and the Jews, per the sources.

The sources to include Cleopatra are not academic, they are four American tabloids making clickbait lists.

First: Huffington Post using evidence cited from the Daily Mail, a notorious British tabloid http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1095043/Sorry-Liz-THIS-real-face-Cleopatra.html

Second: Complex calls Cleopatra a "woman of color", a phrase which didn't exist 100 years ago never mind 2,000 years ago. Probable echoing of Afrocentric meme http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/04/25-minority-characters-that-hollywood-whitewashed/cleopatra

Third: US News: "The British-American actress (she had dual citizenship) doesn't look even remotely Egyptian or North African. " Not an argument, Cleopatra was Greek. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/12/white-actors-portraying-people-of-color-in-hollywood

Fourth: Madame Noire. An ethnocentric website claiming that both the Egyptians and Hebrews were black, both of which are discredited fringe theories. http://madamenoire.com/496138/cast-non-blacks-in-black-roles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.9.247

• Not sure what is wrong... but this thread is interfering with the Mobile view of the page... the other discussions (below) are not showing up when this page is viewed in Mobile view. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

OK... I removed the hat that was applied to the thread, and that seems to have resolved the issue. Mobile view is working again. Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we have been through this before a few times - there are some conflicting issues.

• Cleopatra has been criticised/discussed often as an example of 'whitewashing' in film, due to the casting of Taylor (a white woman) in a role that many felt should have been a North African/Black role role.
• The basis for this criticism/discussion is completely wrong as any half-decent Eqyptian scholar (as well as the Egyptians themselves) know that Cleopatra was of significantly pure/inbred/limited Greek racial stock and in no way resembled the 'black' African race that the fringe want to claim Cleopatra should have been.
• There are few sources that address both issues due to scholars not wasting time refuting rubbish.

So we end up with 'yes there are sources that Cleopatra is an example of Whitewashing', 'yes there are sources that state unequivacably that Cleopatra not black/african' and nothing to link the two. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"Cleopatra was black", if that's what the article is saying, is the least of its problems. It's come up before, but I think the article is terminally broken. There are probably a lot more "reliable sources" claiming that Iron Man 3 was white-washed, but that missed the point that casting an Asian actor to play a "traditional" Mandarin character would have been much worse. The simple fact is that any source that calls the either of these films white-washed is, even if it generally meets the criteria laid out in WP:RS, unreliable for the specific claim that the films are white-washed because it gets the relevant facts wrong and ignores context. It's quite common in modern American popular culture to claim that "the pharaohs were black, and have historically been whitewashed", but that misses the point that "the pharaohs" were not a single homogeneous dynasty reigning unbroken for thousands of years. Cleopatra was descended from Greek or Macedonian immigrants, so anyone claiming that a film is an example of "white-washing" because she is portrayed by a white actress is almost certainly doing so because of ignorance of the specific historical context in which she lived. (Living in Ireland at the time, I remember people ridiculing Oliver Stone's Alexander because the lead and several of those around him sounded like they were from north Dublin, but it never would have occurred to me that the main problem with the film was that Alexander and his generals were actually supposed to be black.)

"Cleopatra was black" doesn't even really qualify as a fringe theory. It's just an inaccurate claim found in some sources written by people who aren't really interested in the historical Cleopatra so much as modern American films, so this thread more properly belongs on RSN than here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There is an enormous history debating Cleopatra being portrayed as white. Google Books shows even more pertinent results when one searches for Cleopatra and whitewashing. Instead of pretending that there has never been a debate about the film, the listing should be expanded with the proper in-text attributions. These are films that have been criticized for whitewashing. The criticism should be included, and the counter-criticism should also be included. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Linda and Terry Jamison

Linda and Terry Jamison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bloated and really awful. Much WP:OR used to support the twins predictions. And tons of puffery sourced to Youtube videos and fringe websites. Needs chopping. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Biography" section, which seems to me to be unduly late in the article, doesn't look too bad to me. Maybe move that up to the top, add a short section on some of their predictions, if there are sources for them, and short sections on books and/or media appearances thereafter? John Carter (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to remove some of the worst crap, some of which reeks of cut-and-paste from press releases or TV listings. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up, but so much of it was sourced to YouTube vids, their own book and other unreliabel sources, and so much of it was folksy "they moved to X without a penny to their name" guff that I concluded this is a WP:TNT job and sent it to WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That CSD was sorta overblown, deleting the pic as well. Point is, they actually work as psychics, so do not claim the job doesnt exist. The WP:category exists and is applicable ;) Someone may design as well horoscopes or do Tarot readings, and make a living out of it, even if you assume foretelling is not possible. I like John Carter's approach. Polentarion Talk 05:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I want their Book and Filmography section back. They have appeared on all the listed programs. I don't believe it's all crap either! They make a living out of acting, appearances and their predictions. I will take suggestions on how to add back. Maybe add the a section 'Appearances in the media'. If I don't hear anything it's going back the way it was. Thisandthem (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

They may have appeared on all the listed programs but WP is not a resume, nor a vehicle for promotion and puffery. And we cannot accept TV guide listings and WP:SENSATIONal tabloid coverage as citations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In general, to include material about media appearances, some sort of source indpendent of the production itself and the individuals who appear in it discussing those appearances is generally wanted for their inclusion. And if the apparent threat made by @Thisandthem: is acted upon, and the removed material is restored without any consensus from others as per WP:CONSENSUS, that restoration would probably be counted as a violation of WP:TE or WP:DE and potentially make the individual restoring that material subject to sanctions. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I added some material to the lede regarding the accuracy of their predictions, which has since been removed from the lede. I note that the template I added regarding expanding the lede has also been removed, with the lede currently only two sentences long. I think both of those changes could be seen as problematic, but would prefer if someone else looked into it. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a short lead is a problem if the entire article itself is less than four paragraphs long. In the case of a big article, sure, you'd want the lead to cover the important points made in the body of the article. But given the shortness of this article, asking people to expand the lead so it summarizes the main points of the article would result in needless redundancy. As for mentioning the accuracy of their predictions in the lead, I see no problem with that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

RS/N discussion of interest

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#globalsecurity.org

Please do not confuse the site with globalresearch.ca That said, I still contend that the website has problems that people who monitor this board might be able to comment upon.

jps (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that this source is routinely used by the New York Times and other purveyors of "conspiracy theories". And note that non-neutral notifications may be violations of WP:CANVASS. Collect (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Collect, you're being rude. If you think that this is non-neutral, explain how. I was clear what was my opinion and as it involves issues related to conspiracy theories, there are people who watch this noticeboard who might have expertise in how to address this question. jps (talk)

Your language is right above my comment. It appears to maybe, possibly, imply that the website "has problems" and I humbly suggest that the CANVASS rules imply that you should in no way present your own opinions in any notifications. Your mileage appears to vary a great deal from mine. Collect (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The language in question doesn't imply anything; it clearly states that jps contends that it has problems. Also, nowhere in WP:CANVASS is it suggested that presenting one's own opinion when asking for outside opinions is to be avoided. Indeed, it's a pretty ridiculous suggestion, as anyone who is liable to be swayed can be just as easily swayed by the opinions at the original discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

OTRS again?

at Electromagnetic hypersensitivity Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, Jbhunley is re-inserting WP:PROFRINGE content and invoking[1] an OTRS ticket as a basis for it. May need eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

All I said is that, based on discussions with the editor via OTRS, that I believe their post on the talk page is a good faith attempt to discuss material. It was initially removed as "obvious sock puppet" without any link to a master or SPI.

The editors there are free to engage with this editor or not. Open an SPI or not. My opinion begins and ends with the fact that I believe they made a good faith edit to the talk page. Jbh^Talk 18:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The concern is the invocation of OTRS. How is that meant to bear usefully on the discussion given then non-OTRS folk have no access to it? Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The "invocation of OTRS" as you put it is simply a link to the "why" I think it was a good faith edit and not a sock as mentioned in the removal of the talk page section. I am not allowed to say anything about my discussions with people at OTRS unless they give me permission.

I do not see why this is even a question for FTN - there were no edits to the article. I explained to the editor that did the initial removal,Steelpillow why I rv'd [2] and, by looking at the ticket and OTRS agent can review the ticket and judge if my opinion and action was reasonable or not. If you do not want to discuss the material with the editor then ignore it and let it archive off of the page. Jbh^Talk 18:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The invocation of OTRS equates to saying "I have a secret reason why this is okay" - which is distinctly unhelpful and smells of trying to pull rank. With the history of OTRS volunteer over-reach we have seen here, this is troubling. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes. That is precicely what it is. I had confidential information, provided via email to OTRS, that gave me reasonable cause to believe that it was a good faith talk page edit. That is how the system works. I made no representation about the content nor anything about the editor beyond my belief that there were not a sock of an unnamed and unidentified master. You are more than welcome to ask someone with access to the OTRS queue to review 2016111510018082 or to go over to meta, ask for OTRS access, sign the confidentiality agreement and read it yourself. Jbh^Talk 19:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I tend to think that we should let things go on talkpages. If the concern is that someone is going to mistake the comment for consensus, just put in a note indicating that the discussion has been had and the conclusions that came from that discussion aren't changed by that comment. jps (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That said, the loooong comment was pretty disruptive and arguably a violation of something like WP:FAKEARTICLE. I collapsed it with a note. jps (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Jbh^Talk 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me for not knowing what OTRS means. After a long period of quiescence, a fringe editor pops up [3], they are rejected and two brand new SPIs suddenly take up the challenge [4][5]. So we have apparent sockpuppetry by a fringe editor. Forgive me for describing this as the bleedin' obvious, but can we deal with the actual editing issue here? Alexbrn (talk · contribs) has it right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

OTRS is, essentially, Wikipedia's confidential public facing email based help system (it does other stuff too). People who handle OTRS tickets are Wikipedia editors and volunteers. Even when people give us permission to acknowledge on-wiki that they have opened a ticket we are not permitted to discuss anything further about that ticket without their express permission. We provide the ticket number so other OTRS volunteers, who also have signed the confidentiality agreement, can review the matter if needed ex. an admin with OTRS access at SPI. Jbh^Talk 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

>speechless< Have a nice day. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd have given him a polite dismissive reply. I know it's hard to get rid of cranks from OTRS tickets, but his attempt to change content is doomed and it's best to patiently explain that. I can't remember the canned reply, but I usually used to custom reply anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Barry Sears and the Zone diet

• Barry Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zone diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed there was some coatracking about the Zone diet (a.n.other fad diet) at Barry Sears, but wonder - if the unsourced and self-sourced content is stripped away - whether Sears in fact merits a standalone article? May need eyes in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Starts by saying it doesn't work, as it should. Overall I think having a separate article about the person behind this does more good than harm. I think it should stay. Roches (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Lövheim cube of emotion

• Lövheim cube of emotion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looks fringe-y to me, not least because most of the substantive content is source to papers authored by Lövheim. What do people think? Guy (Help!) 00:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm a bit out of my depth here and can't really help. However I have taken the liberty of dropping a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science. Maybe someone who passes CIR can chime in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Can not talk about the article subject, but the editing pattern is somewhat suspicious, with a article about a proposed theory from 2012 created in 2012 by a editor that made few more edits. That looks like someone found a theory they liked (or created) and got to advertising it. On the other hand, there are later references from 2015 and 2016 (which I did NOT checked) of this being used. Still looks pretty thin to me. - Nabla (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC) PS: I passed on your request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cognitive science.

According to Web of Science, the Lovheim 2012 article has been cited just 19 times. (For comparison, Plutchik 1980, which the WP article suggests is comparable, as been cited 163 times.) The journal Medical Hypotheses is reputable but not very influential; WoS puts its impact in the 4th quartile. I would conclude that this is not a crackpot theory, but neither is it influential or especially notable. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is not fringe (or at least, not any more fringe than most of cognitive so-called "science", but that's a different kettle of fish). Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Schwartz_(2nd_nomination)

AfD on a doctor who specializes in Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy and seems to have enjoyed media coverage based on promotional activity associated with the release of her books, rather than coverage of her as a person. Further input required. Delta13C (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Biocentric universe

This has been discussed here twice before:

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Biocentric_universe_and_Robert_Lanza in Dec 2013
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Biocentric_nonsense just this August

Is almost entirely sourced to a book and articles by the originators and the reception is WP:GEVAL, citing praise from Chopra cited to a press release, etc. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This looks to me like one of the better instances we have out there of what might be called purely conjectural "theoretical physics." A similar case, I suppose, might be the subject of religious views of specific and general evolution. Basically, what do we call an idea which at this point has no evidence one way or another to support or oppose it, and how to we make that clear? Might there be some way to group together all these topics, which propose ideas which are not yet examinable, in some sort of specific grouping? At least some of them might, I suppose, maybe be found to have some sort of basis if and when we ever get to the point of developing ways to examine them, but, in a lot of cases, on many sides, I tend to think that a lot of these arguments are, basically, just examples of changing one discredited point with one which can't yet be examined, and thus basically keeping a possibly discredited idea alive by obfuscation. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Might this basically be considered something along the lines of a thought experiment, and, if so, might describing it as such be useful? John Carter (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's overhyped speculation, basically. I don't understand what it's doing in Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to have received independent evaluation notwithstanding the peculiar media attention it has garnered. I think the media's obsession with novelty often means they end up promoting WP:FRINGE way beyond their actual notability within the scholarly community that matters. This is such an example. jps (talk)

I think it's time we had this discussion in the context of our current hardline with regards to identifying notable ideas in articlespace: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocentric universe (2nd nomination). I expect a lively discussion. jps (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

the folks who love chopra love this stuff - the whole wooly headed What the Bleep Do We Know!? crowd that wants to gussy up their spirituality with scienciness. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This does seem to me to maybe be a case of "shifting goalposts" in a sense for some variation on the anthropic principle. As a matter of philosophy, maybe, that position might well merit more than one article, but I think it might be best to if possible have someone review the state of academic opinion on that topic area before spinning out too many articles on variations on that theme. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Universal intelligence

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

I... don't know what to do with this article. It is a true mess of fringe nonsense.

jps (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This styles itself as a spinoff from the article on Chiropractic, which is is not particularly long. I'd suggest a merge across - and drastic trimming along the way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal intelligence. jps (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Eight-circuit model of consciousness

Eight-circuit model of consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I added a note that it was not advanced with scientific evidence, another editor keeps removing this and calling it a "hypothesis model". More eyes would probably be good - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Leary proposed this exactly because he thought it was digressive and humorous. The whole point was for it not to be a "hypothesis". jps (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can cite that, that would be excellent. I linked the archive.org copy of the book on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I tried to locate the talk where he made this point and failed. I'll keep trying though. jps (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

David Seaman (journalist)

IP editors have been adding or re-adding a substantial amount of unreliable or promotional commentatory, including fringe-promotional content, to this article (which is currently at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist)). The article subject, an Internet blogger who apparently promotes various political conspiracy theories, apparently made a three-minute "call to arms" style about his article and its proposed deletion, broadcasting it to his followers.

The latest IP addition is text describing Seaman as "investigating" Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). IP editors also keep adding/re-adding unreliable sources ("Zero Hedge," "Morning News USA," an op-ed in a campus newspaper, etc.).

More eyeballs and hands are needed. Neutrality^talk 01:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Geez this Pizzagate thing is a headache. Add this article and the Pizzagate article to your watchlist and grab some popcorn. Sigh. --Krelnik (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

An update: this article was deleted today, read the finalized discussion here. I should expect his followers to try to recreate it. --Krelnik (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

An anonymous woo-monger and one proper editor want to change Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to describe it as a peer-reviewed medical journal. Given that one of the editors is Dean Radin, and the current issue pimps Chopralalia, Emotional Freedom Techniques and some utter wibble, I think this is a contentious description. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's peer-reviewed in the sense that Elsevier requires it to follow the peer-review process, but the issue is that the editorial board only contains believers in alternative medicine (I just went through the entire list), and so they are using editorial discretion as a means to bypass the typical process that would accompany a normal journal. Obscure trade journals such as this are a dime-a-dozen and I think that the sole mention by Gorski doesn't qualify this journal as being at all notable. Delete perhaps?

I also will be calling Elsevier about this on Monday. It's an interesting case, indeed. jps (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, let's have a more reasonable discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination). The last one had a lot of people claiming the journal passed WP:NJournal simply because it was indexed(!) and published by Elsevier(!). That's not what the criteria actually are for notable journals! jps (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh

List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One of the worst of the "List of reportedly haunted locations in..." articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That is really bad. I was going to pull one example from it but the entire thing is written like a paranormal travel guide. —DIY Editor (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

We might need to completely rewrite it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "paranormal travel guide"s, I wonder if maybe we might contact wikivoyage and see if they think at least some of the material might be more appropriate there. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The user who created this article is making a version which is just a bigger WP:FRINGE violation, see here. I left a message on his talk page. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this article, I just only copied the contents from its source article List of reportedly haunted locations, because I want to make that article shorter. But if it appears to violate Wikipedia's policy of Fringe Theories (and even Reliable Sources), I may suggest the following options: complete rewriting, removing source citations that are blogs etc, or a complete deletion of this article. if deletion is the consensus, I would agree. Regarding my sandbox, I created it because I want to sort all entries of this article via provinces. During the creation of this sandbox, I came up across a website that lists numerous places in PH reportedly haunted. I included them all in the sandbox. However, I did not realize that what I did to the sandbox would might make matters even more worse. I would need much help, because I don't know how to summarize it. But I'm considering the possibility of deleting this sandbox by myself, and suggesting the feasibility of province-sorted format on the article's talk page instead. If deleting this sandbox is the consensus, I would agree, but I would need help on how to delete it (or if I would make a request to administrators for a speedy deletion of the sandbox). JWilz12345 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards deletion here. I don't think any of the listed "hauntings" are independently notable and the list appears to violate PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I might need the result of the discussion to determine if my sandbox constitutes a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies, and if so, I would consider a request for an urgent and irreversible speedy deletion.JWilz12345 (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be phrased as to reflect that the reports are not verified facts. This article and your sandbox aren't the only examples of haunted locations lists. —DIY Editor (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything especially urgent here. Let's get some more input and if there is a consensus we can either send the list to AfD or just treat it as an uncontroversial deletion via PROD. I doubt your sandbox poses an urgent threat. If you wanted to, you can always just blank it. It is your sandbox. Also it is not in the mainspace so I really don't see the need to get too worked up. As for the other lists we can look at those on a case by case basis. Not everything that's fringey is non-notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've made it clear that I didn't think the content topic itself was inappropriate for an article. It just needs careful rewrites to have the proper tone. —DIY Editor (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I created the article List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh (which was taken from the article List of reportedly haunted locations, without adept knowledge of Wikipedia's Fringe Theories policy), because I thought it was appropriate and would not cause some trouble. It was because another article, Ghosts in Bengali culture (which I once visited and browsed), also lists those essentially same locations, on same tone and style, and same reference sources, that was why I though my new article "List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh" would comply WP's standards.JWilz12345 (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've noticed that an editor with IP address 2A03:2880:2130:CFF0:FACE:B00C:0:1 has somehow rewrote parts of my sandbox. Is that a sign of slight improvement? Tnx for response.JWilz12345 (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned the "mother article" Ghosts in Bengali culture#Alleged_haunted_places of unsourced material and everything cited to blogspot blogs, YouTube videos, fringe sites, etc. as well as dramatic and credulous descriptions...and have been reverted by an IP - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the IP. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that Ramlalaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account devoted entirely to introducing credulous descriptions of the supernatural in similar articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have finally made up my mind: I'll accept deletion of this article List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh or it be merged into the article Ghosts in Bengali culture. As for my sandbox, I'll rewrite it meticulously - to the extent of my ability and capacity.JWilz12345 (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

NJournal

• WP:NJournal
• Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)

I made a change to the descriptions of how to evaluate criteria for academic journal notability. Previously, the guideline stated that simply being indexed by certain selective indexing services as well as merely having an impact factor was enough to establish notability. Wow! That's simply ridiculous. However, I expect some pushback from those who would like to see their pet journals written about at Wikipedia. So if you have some ideas about this opinion of mine, please offer them.

Here is the diff.

jps (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Things are going poorly. I think that the essay is unsalvageable because the gatekeepers don't seem to understand why it's a problem to simply declare that the existence of an impact factor is what makes a journal notable. As such Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals). jps (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Things are going poorly indeed. There's a little bit more to this discussion than WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 indicates here (I mean, this post on my talk page, this AfD for an article that was kept just a month ago, and this attempt to modify NJournals to obtain their desired outcome in said AfD. As for the IF thing: about 10,000 journals have been selected for inclusion in the Journal Citation Reports, out of an estimated 80,000 to 200,000 existing academic journals. Seems rather selective to me. --Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

what are the criteria for inclusion in JCR? Might the mere fact that Elsevier publish it have an influence on that inclusion? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion in JCR is automatic for journals included in one of the three main citation indexes of Thomson Reuters (Science Citation Index, Social SCI, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index), so the question becomes what the criteria for those three indexes are. Those criteria are multiple (is the journal cited regularly by reputable other journals, is the editorial board diverse geographically and composed of specialists in the area, are those specialists themselves well cited, etc). The criteria are more explicitly listed on the TR website (see here). Being published by Elsevier is certainly not an immediate pass. For example, I recently was at a conference and was informed that Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences had been rejected by Thomson Reuters for inclusion in their citation indexes. --Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I just looked through TR and I can find no Elsevier Journal that is more than five years old that is not indexed. This in spite of the fact that many of these journals are not close to what we would consider reliable sources. Longevity is enough for TR, seriously. There is no evidence that they actually try to evaluate whether the editorial board is broad enough to promote proper peer review. In the case of Explore, we know that this is plainly not the case. jps (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is because it's published by Elsevier. But we have WP:Randy in Boise here to explain to us how he knows best. Hooray! jps (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the disagreement boils down to how one sees WP, as a summary of accepted knowledge or as a repository of information. I favour the former view, and find it hard to see how it is possible to summarize accepted knowledge about this journal, because none exists AFAICS in the kinds of source WP needs. Alexbrn (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

We are not DMOZ. I think that WP:RS has to be respected. Being indexed and having an impact factor is enough to have an article on Wikipedia according to people using this essay to argue about the notability of journals. This is a wide open door for fringe journals to be advertised. If I didn't know any better, I would think that this was the work of people hoping to promote their obscure, fringe journals here in Wikipedia. I couldn't design a better campaign to do this, myself. jps (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I find it really unfortunate that many AfD discussions hinge on counting things like ghits and indices, rather than addressing the question of whether the subject warrants an encyclopedia article. This is not just a problem with journals. I've also seen it in biographical articles of academics. Researchers in fringe areas are able to game the system, and inflate their own google citation numbers. Here is a particularly over the top example. Commentators in AfD discussions can then unthinkingly present evidence like "Keep. h-index of 30." While indices are certainly a useful indicator of notability, I strongly object to their use as prima facie evidence of notability. I'm guessing the same is true for fringe journals, whose indices are buoyed mostly by self-citations. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we have to bear in mind that 99% of academic journals are perfectly worthy, ultra-cautious and boring. We should not skew discussion of notability or reliability just because of a handful of what I would call pseudo-journals. I don't normally see citation index as the main way of distinguishing real journals from pseudo ones. The first thing I look at is whether it is published by one of the mainstream publishers like Taylor & Francis or Sage. If not, that's a red light. Then the institutional affiliations of the editors. Usually you see a whole lot of people who are obviously distinguished experts, even if it's a really obscure field. Most normal journals are minor ones, but that is only a problem when an article is used to make claims beyond what it can support. For example if a journal of nursing education reported from a small survey of student nurses their opinions of obesity. That could be perfectly fine to cite as research on opinions of obesity but is obviously no use at all on the causes of obesity. We see that kind of misuse a lot. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I very much doubt that 99% of academic journals are perfectly worthy (in their field), if we count by number. If we count by readers or "copies sold" (electronically) or something similar, then probably. Either way, we have no way of knowing, which is the big problem. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I have been against the current criteria and their application; in particular, I think Scopus should not be considered selective enough to keep a journal.

This being said, Itsmejudith is spot on. As I see it, our Sacred Mission as Repository of the Sum of Human Knowledge (sound the trumpets) means our criteria for inclusion should be much less stringent for hard science than for (e.g.) celebrity scandals. The point of WP:GNG is to have an objective criterion to use to decide whether something is part of the Sum of Human Knowledge; it makes sense to decide that arid technical work that 99.999% of the world population has never heard of is still something the collective mind of humans knows and values, because "well-known" is not the same as "widely-known". There are already convoluted additions to GNG (e.g. WP:PERSISTENCE) for the other end of the spectrum, so it is not shocking in itself to have a separate evaluation of notability for technical topics, as long as it is objective and reliable.

While indexes and other metrics are only a presumption of notability, can be manipulated etc. etc. 99% of the time they will be the only data available online when the article reaches AfD. The current state of things, where NJOURNAL is an essay but with tremendous weight, looks good to me - being an essay avoids the "sacred cow" status guidelines tend to reach where not a single comma will ever be changed even in the face of problems, while it has objective criteria that are enforced consistently and are the least worse objective criteria available.

For the record, while I tend to think the JCR is enough, I strongly disagree with Randykitty's reasoning above (about 10,000 journals have been selected (...) out of an estimated 80,000 to 200,000 existing academic journals. Seems rather selective to me.) - selectivity is not about trimming down by a certain percentage, it is about having criteria that guarantee some threshold of noteworthiness/quality, no matter whether 99.99%, 50% or 0.01% of examined subjects eventually pass. If 99% of journals are demonstrably publishing whatever unreviewed crap authors pay them to, then the JCR is not selective enough to use it as a notability indicator. If 99% of journals are about niche topics but well-reviewed, then the JCR is more than selective enough. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

RF resonant cavity thruster

We've have edit-warring for a while on the RF resonant cavity thruster (aka emdrive), the perpetual-motion machine machine that can ostensibly produce reactionless thrust in a vacuum, recently tested by the NASA Eagleworks lab; it would be good to have additional eyes on it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The major problem is that proponents are seizing on every positive finding and crowbarring it into the article. Wikipedia has never been good with breaking stories, it will be years before this is finally settled one way or the other (if it ever is, there are still people who swear blind that cold fusion is a thing). Guy (Help!) 09:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Near-death experience

Am working on cleaning this up and unsurprisingly being met with advocates. More eyes would be useful. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Always feels good to be told via edit comment that an edit which removes a false equivalence between science and tabloid journalism is "not neutral": [6]. jps (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Climate change denial

A new user, Carlos Danger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to want to change denier to skeptic in articles, without discussion. left a warning but can others look at this too please? Guy (Help!) 09:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Dental amalgam controversy | false balance?

• Dental amalgam controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking at this I'm surprised to see the whole article lede couched in a on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand manner. Is there really a serious dispute about the safety of dental amalgam, or is this a big WP:GEVAL problem? Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Short answer, there isn't a serious dispute regarding the science, but it is commonplace on Teh Internetz. Quack dentists offer treatments, at great profit to themselves I assume. a certain 'Health Danger' and many like him, re-inforce what appears to me to be a meme repeated over and again, and traction has been gained for it. Aargh. In my experience in the backwoods of illness specific forums, you will always find somebody who cured themselves of the incurable by having the amalgam replaced, and they get believed by people who are desperate, ffs. Do I need to mention Thimersol? Tis the same thing. As regards our article, I started to get angry when I read some of the history there, so I've taken a break. Roxy the dog. bark 16:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of the lede seems to me truly strange, like the material from the WHO. That, in particular, doesn't seem to be about dental amalgams per se, but the processing of them, which is a different matter entirely. Agree with Roxy that this seems to be another of the rather run of the mill "lets bilk the bozos for some big, or mid-size, bucks by trying to scare them into doing something unnecessarily, but profitable, for us." Also think that at the very least the material about the WHO should probably be stricken from the lede as it seems to me to be not a controversy about dental amalgam per se, but rather hazardous waste processing. That material might be more directly relevant to some article on hazardous waste processing or mercury poisoning. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I would vote for removing most or all of that paragraph. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with removing the WHO data. It should also be noted that the dental amalgam issue is a First World issue, but the WHO's observations are global. It is likely that much of the mercury from dental offices is in developing countries where the cheapest filling (amalgam) is more likely the filling of choice. Also, dental offices in developing countries would be less likely to use amalgam separators; the sentence about separators makes the allusion that dental offices use much more of the world's mercury supply than they appear to, and this may not be true.

Strictly speaking, while the controversy is exactly analogous to thimerosal, they are chemically different. Thimerosal is an organomercury compound given in trivial doses, while amalgam is a type of alloy, a mixture of two metals. Elemental mercury as found in amalgam is less toxic (see mercury poisoning) than organic or positively charged mercury. Roches (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio host)

Maybe it's some sort of reaction against increased scrutiny on fake news sites have been getting in the public eye recently, but I've been noticing more editors (and some of them not just drive-by IPs but editors who have been here for years but avoided these kinds of topics) trying to argue that Alex Jones isn't a conspiracy theorist and that InfoWars isn't a fake news site because... it's only mainstream sources that say so, he disagrees; or it's "only" the cited sources. Some have also tried saying "oh, we just need to attribute it," when we have US News and World Report and a different news article citing a communications professor supporting the description of the site as a fake news site.

Has WP:RS recently changed so that US News and World Report is unreliable, but InfoWars is? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think some of these are probably good faith editors who have noticed all the attention that "fake news" sites have gotten lately. Perhaps they feel that some readers would easily brush off the label "conspiracy theory" site but find "fake news" more malicious in nature? If so then they probably believe they are helping warn folks off of Jones. Just a thought. --Krelnik (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not that. There are users who are trying to get rid of the conspiracy theorist label, and there are users who are trying to get rid of the fake news label. Sources support both labels. Meant to say or it's "only" the cited sources' opinions, sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok, I didn't dig deep into the history. Added Jones to my watchlist though. --Krelnik (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that failed attempts to whitewash topics labeled as conspiracy theories are often followed by attempts to change the conspiracy theory article to be more favorable to conspiracy theories. Which is why Conspiracy theory should be on everyone's watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Alternative medicine sidebar edit war

There is an edit war going over what appears to be an effort to water down some of the language in the template. Extra eyes are requested. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the talk page. Input from other interested editors would be much appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nicolae Ceaușescu and the word "regime"

An editor believes that the use of the term "regime" in this article is a problem. So this editor has, by their own admission, removed 19 of 20 instances of this term being used in the article. I would appreciate some feedback and direction on this issue. Below are both the user's edit and explanation left on my talk page, which I subsequently moved to the user's talk page.

Edit: [7]

Explanation: [8]

Discussion moved here: [9]

I will alert the editor of this discussion. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notification. I am strapped up for time at the moment but I am watching this and I will endeavour to provide a response as quickly as possible (hopefully next 48 hours). I appreciate everyone's patience. In the meantime, please all feel free to remark. --OJ (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If I can provide a link to some former discussions (that may save me from repeating monologues): Talk:Apostrof#Regime, mentioned once, One discussion I hoped to launch but didn't attract much interest. As I stated, I will be back but now I need to go SHOPPING with my wife to buy presents for all the children....as will thousands of others! --OJ (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that the first place to initiate a discussion should be Talk:Nicolae_Ceaucescu rather than the fringe theories noticeboard? Since discussion has begun here, I will also opine here, but do not object if someone decides to move this thread to the article talk page. A Google scholar search [for "Ceaucescu regime" returns over 2000 hits, compared to fewer than 200 for "Ceaucescu government" (which includes the possessive form "Ceaucescu's government"). Google books shows a similar 10 to 1 prevalence of "regime" over "government". It seems that regime is the most widely used term for the government apparatus under Ceaucescu. Therefore, I think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to use this term as well. Maintaining a neutral point of view, particularly in cases like this, means using similar language to reliable sources, rather than injecting our own editorial preference for or against the word "regime". Concerns about specific uses of the word in context can be discussed at the article discussion page. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)