Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 432188779 by 66.194.104.5 (talk)
Line 97: Line 97:
It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. [[Special:Contributions/66.194.104.5|66.194.104.5]] ([[User talk:66.194.104.5|talk]]) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. [[Special:Contributions/66.194.104.5|66.194.104.5]] ([[User talk:66.194.104.5|talk]]) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
::[[User:Licorne]] was banned from Wikipedia for Holocaust Denial promotion, anti-semeticism, and pseudophysics promotions (which he is still doing). It isn't right that you all are letting him post his ongoing anti-reality propaganda at tired light under all these different IP addresses which all are being used by the same person. [[Special:Contributions/140.252.83.232|140.252.83.232]] ([[User talk:140.252.83.232|talk]]) 05:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
::[[User:Licorne]] was banned from Wikipedia for Holocaust Denial promotion, anti-semeticism, and pseudophysics promotions (which he is still doing). It isn't right that you all are letting him post his ongoing anti-reality propaganda at tired light under all these different IP addresses which all are being used by the same person. [[Special:Contributions/140.252.83.232|140.252.83.232]] ([[User talk:140.252.83.232|talk]]) 05:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
:::I got fed-up and rewrote the tired light article to try to prevent this nonsense, but this banned user is still pushing pretty hard on the talkpage, promoting the cosmologystatement.org nonsense that has been a standard issue by such pseudophysics promoters. I'm not sure what if anything can be done to deter him in his quest to get his article and those other absurd ideas he's a fan of listed at Wikipedia, but now at least the article seems to function as a reasonable object lesson in the history of astrophysics. [[Special:Contributions/140.252.83.241|140.252.83.241]] ([[User talk:140.252.83.241|talk]]) 23:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


== Reichian therapy and associated articles ==
== Reichian therapy and associated articles ==

Revision as of 23:02, 2 June 2011

    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    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.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Lloyd Pye

    Lloyd Pye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The guy is fringe "science theorist" but the article currently consists of a lot of content WP:SYNthesized by wikipedia editors to disprove the claims and relying on Pyes posted criticism of his Wikipedia article in some bad WP:CIRCULAR claims - in otherwords a mess.

    Can someone come clean it up? (also cross posting on BLP notice board). Active Banana (bananaphone

    Richard Milton (author)

    Richard Milton (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Article on WP:FRINGE-advocating journalist, sourced almost entirely to his own work. May or may not be notable (Richard Dawkins reviews one of his books, but refers to him as an "unknown journalist"). If notable, needs a lot of work, if not, then I'll AfD it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be too little information available about him to justify and article and it should be deleted. TFD (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also delete:
    J. Francis Hitching
    Gordon Rattray Taylor
    Michael Pitman

    No sources for any of them. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is NOT the "unsourced" board, or the Requests for Deletion board. Please follow proper deletion procedure, Liveintheforests. Do not spam this board with WP:POINT violating posts. Remember that if you push this far enough, you may be blocked for disruption. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    As you can see, he's done that. After referencing at least one of those and then removing the references ending up with a reason for the AfD being lack of references. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Liveintheforests, you've been told this before and I'll give you another chance to absorb it. It is long past time for you to STOP accusing other editors of vandalism simply for disagreeing with you. Since you haven't understood what the word means on Wikipedia yet, I'll direct you to WP:VAN so you can read up on it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Avro Manhattan

    Anti-Vatican polemicist whose article could use some balance: it reads "reasonable critic" where from what I can tell he maps out more to "fevered anti-Papist". Considering how difficult it is turning out to be to find third-party references outside the anti-Catholic world, there may also be notability problems here. I could use help researching this. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    New AFDs from Liveintheforests - taken to ANI as possibly pointy

    See WP:ANI#Possibly pointy AFDs. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He ended up blocked for a week. His edits may need reviewing. He described a review of a book by Richard Milton as a positive review. Luckily I was able to find it on the web, and it says Milton needs to read up on his geology and biology, see [1] (he also takes the reviewer's mention of 2 other books and calls the 3 a series on that basis, but that's not as heinous). I'd appreciate it if someone would check to see if my rewrite[2] is fair to the source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Finnic mythologies&Finnic peoples

    Leeming, David Adams (2003). "Finnic and Other Non-Indo-European Mythologies". European Mythology. Oxford University Press. pp. 133–141. ISBN 9780195143614. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

    states among other things

    by 3000 B.C.E the Finno-ugric peoples had broken up into two primary subfamilies-Finnic and Ugric...The Finnic peoples became Permians (Permiaks and Udmurts in Russia), so called Volga Finns (especially Mordvians and Mari or Cheremis, also in what is now Russia), and Baltic Finns (karelians in Russia, Estonians in the Baltics , and the Finns what is now Finland). The Lapps (Saami) in northern Scandinavia and Russia are usually included.

    The source is used in the article about Finnic mythologies and (also Finnic peoples), yet, there's an editor at Talk:Finnic_mythologies who insists the whole subject is WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. Please comment. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The questions have been already addressed @ WP:RSN.--Termer (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW The leading Hungarian publisher Akadémiai Kiadó has a series of scholarly books on "Uralic mythologies." --Folantin (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dendera light -- and Reddi

    This has had a section on the fringe interpretation of these stone reliefs (which is that they show electricity) with the section heading 'PseudoEgyptology' which Reddi has changed to 'Interpretation'. I think this might be confusing, as the Egyptologists' interpretation is of course something quite different. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I think the section header should make it clearer that it's a fringe interpretation. Of course, the title itself is a fringe name for ordinary reliefs. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes the title of the article is already about the fringe interpretation, which is really the only thing that makes the relief notable. I've laid out the interpretation in the lede. Perhaps the conventional interpretation could be expanded more. Paul B (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I don't know if I can do that, I'll ask. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camarillo_State_Mental_Hospital

    There are many problems with the page on the Camarillo Mental Hospital. It appears that it has been written by a blogger who created a website on the psychiatric hospital that spreads false tumors and unaccurate truths. The hospital has been under scrutinity since its opening in 1936 and media coverage focused mainly on the Grand Jury trials which investigated suspicious deaths at Camarillo hospital. Since its transformation into Channel Island University, what was left of the hospital is pictured on websites that claim that the former hospital was a place of suffering and that therefore the place where it used to stand is now haunted.

    Please remove / do not edit any pages on the Camarillo Mental Hospital that do not quote articles published in books published by experts in the field. Kirsten Anderberg's website quoted on the wiki page about Camarillo is not a reliable source of information written on the hospital. Everyone writing on Camarillo Mental Hospital knows that her self-published book (Kindle) is a series of loosely documented portraits of women that she believed were patients there. Most of them were dangerous criminals who were committed to prevent them from murdering more poeple. This article is historically inaccurate because it has been written by someone well-known from real historians, a disturbed women who believes she must avenge the many victims she identifies with. For a more balanced and precise timeline, refer to the http://www.library.csuci.edu/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.140.241 (talk • contribs)

    This is a difficult situation, and I am unsure what is the best course of action here. On the one hand, the old version of the article appears to be sourced mainly to a self-published source, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It does, however, contain references to LA Times articles, which would likely be reliable sources if they back up the information in the text. On the other hand, the text which you have copied and pasted into the articles, 82.123, is directly from the document "A Brief History" on the CSUCI page, which says, right there on the page "THE MATERIALS LOCATED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE COPYRIGHTED. THEY ARE INTENDED FOR CI EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ANY USER WHO REPRODUCES THEM IN ANY WAY, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES WILL BE SUBJECT TO LAWFUL PROSECUTION." I really fail to see what about that statement is unclear. In addition to the university's prohibition, Wikipedia cannot accept material copyrighted to others without appropriate permission from the copyright owner. I would be inclined to revert to an older version of the article without either of these additions. --Kateshortforbob talk 14:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've reverted to a version prior to both these problematic additions. Eyes would be welcome to see if this was the correct move. --Kateshortforbob talk 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Texe Marrs

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

    Poorly sourced, appallingly formatted, out-on-the-edge-WP:FRINGE, and the 'John Hagee' section almost certainly has severe WP:BLP issues -- I'm fairly sure that you need a better source than 'Power of Prophecy Radio program' for saying that somebody "may be possessed by Satan". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A Researcher at Tired Light

    Note that at Tired light a number of IP addresses which geolocate to Tampa and Clearwater (from where the researcher comes) are spamming in his essentially unnoticed idea about tired light disproving the Big Bang. He has been promoting this idea on Wikipedia hoping to get better exposure for a few months now, and this really needs to stop. I've been observing this from afar and have noticed this campaign. Tired light is a well-known historical concept in astrophysics that was falsified early on in the history of cosmology. A few itinerant physicists none of whom are noticed in the community (including the researcher) continue to fight for their opposition to the Big Bang, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place that they do it. Please put this article on your watchlist and explain to the Tampa/Clearwater IPs that they should try to get their ideas noticed by ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A rather than spamming across the internet. Note that this behavior was also reported to WP:COIN.

    198.202.202.22 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This issue was brought up over at WP:COIN and we are referring this back over to FTN for further discussion on this matter. There is a concern about WP:Outing and WP:Civil regarding this reporter. However, all the same, he does bring up an issue which will likely need to be addressed by someone more skilled in addressing FT. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Licorne was banned from Wikipedia for Holocaust Denial promotion, anti-semeticism, and pseudophysics promotions (which he is still doing). It isn't right that you all are letting him post his ongoing anti-reality propaganda at tired light under all these different IP addresses which all are being used by the same person. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I got fed-up and rewrote the tired light article to try to prevent this nonsense, but this banned user is still pushing pretty hard on the talkpage, promoting the cosmologystatement.org nonsense that has been a standard issue by such pseudophysics promoters. I'm not sure what if anything can be done to deter him in his quest to get his article and those other absurd ideas he's a fan of listed at Wikipedia, but now at least the article seems to function as a reasonable object lesson in the history of astrophysics. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reichian therapy and associated articles

    Just came across a whole heap of associated articles of questionable scientific basis:

    It was the laast article that drew my attention to them. Whilst I have the impression that Reichian therapy is considered WP:FRINGE, there is little in these (and probably other, related) articles to indicate this. However, this is outside my area of expertise, so I can offer no more than the odd tag on the subject. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Alchemy

    There is argument on the alchemy related regarding the spiritual interpretation (see Talk:Alchemy#Issues with Article, New Contributor). Some editors believe the spiritual interpretation should have equal standing to the academic historical evidence, which (in peer-reviewed publications) states that the spiritual interpretations arose in the 19th century from the Victorian occult revival (I quoted these sources on the talk page.) The alchemy related articles are often overwhelmed with editors who support the spiritual interpretation, as these are the people who are interested in alchemy and so choose to help edit it. That's fine, if they could provide peer-reviewed academic sources, but I have yet to see one. I did an analysis on the sources used to support that interpretations and none of them were reliable as per WP:IRS (some did not even exist and one was a children's book.) However, I'm confused as to how argumentative I should be. I have multiple academic peer-reviewed sources which say that alchemy was a physical protoscience based on philosophical principles and not spiritual, but I'm being told firmly and repeatedly on the talk page that the spiritual interpretation should still get equal emphasis to the modern academic view. Are non-modern non-peer reviewed sources which forward the spiritual interpretation acceptable to be used as sources, and how much emphasis should this theory be given?

    A further problem is that multiple academic peer-reviewed publications state that many classical alchemical sources were adulterated during the 19th and early 20th centuries to make them support the spiritual interpretation. So what to do about this? Can these sources still be used even though modern academics mark them as fraudulent? And how to tell which is which?

    What to do, what to do? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fritz Springmeier

    Article's a mess, from formatting to content. Someone's added a pov notice today to it. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Raised at WP:BLPN as it's a real mess and we need to sort out any BLP issues in it. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=432257983"