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:

Crop circle

Crop circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite the fact that there are no reliable sources from the last decade or so which indicate that there is any controversy whatsoever about the fact that human beings create crop circles, it seems that some editors would sincerely like to hold out hope for an alternative explanation. More help there would be appreciated. (The claim that simply asserting that humans create crop circles is "too sweeping" is particularly precious.)

jps (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor with quite a long block log [1] for edit warring and whatnot, is now WP:CANVASSING in the hopes that someone will agree with him on this topic. The actual words he wants to put in the article is seen here [2]. Please join in on the relevant talk page though. The more feedback on this, the better. Dream Focus 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Do WP:FOC. As already pointed out to you, WP:SEEKHELP specifically recommends the use of noticeboards such as this one. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is policy for a very good reason.

Would I be far wrong to guess that the very best evidence for a crop circle being created by something other than people would be very poor evidence combined with an appeal to ignorance? --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bumping this thread: a WP:SPA is insistent on trying to pretend that something other than human cause is plausible. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You're not helping by edit warring with them, and then dropping warnings on their talk page. Have you tried discussing the content civilly on the article talk page?- MrX 00:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Though the warning was over the top and rudely inaccurate in its characterisation of me and my editing interests, Guy's latest edit to the article itself is fine. It doesn't push the Fundamentalist Skeptic view unsupported by any source. It remains to be seen how long it will survive before the more extreme version is forced back in. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Guy who dropped the warning on me is an admin, who is also directly involved in the editing of the article. That does seem to be a bit of an abuse of the system. Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins Ghughesarch (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Admins can issue warnings just like any other editor. If he had blocked you while in a content dispute, that might have been more problematic depending on the circumstances. I see nothing improper here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the lede to conform to what we know about crop circles. I expect more pushback as apparently I'm a "hard-line skeptic" or something. jps (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

To judge by the talk page for the article itself, and what has been said here, you seem to be the only person who has edited on the subject recently who remains unhappy about the wording everybody else accepted a few days ago. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, and now we have User:Ghughesarch writing in the lede that a list of crop circles published by the Guardian somehow shows that it isn't clear whether humans made all the crop circles or not. [3]. jps (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that in your desperation to edit disruptively, you didn't even notice that that edit was made by Guy, not by me, and that the source given contains the specific statement, "It is still open to dispute whether some are caused by natural phenomena or all created by human hand." Ghughesarch (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

As above. The Guardian makes the point that I think Ghughesarch may have been making all along: there is legitimate doubt as to whether they were *all* man-made, or whether some might be of natural origin. There's no evidence at all that they are of extraterrestrial origin, so that covers both feasible alternatives and IMO establishes the appropriate balance between them. I take back my assertion that Ghughesarch is an SPA, and apologise: check the edit history, there's a fair bit of activity "way back when", it's a superficial judgment based on recent edits and not really justified. We should not succumb to siege mentality - just because there are a million nutters who want to change Wikipedia to reflect their delusions does not mean that every time our edits are challenged, the challenger is one of them. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia would allow me to "thank" Guy for that comment, I would. Perfect summation of the issue. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Why we think Katy Stoddard should have a lede-worthy opinion on this topic is beyond me, but at least we should attribute it then as I find no other reliable sources which hold to this peculiar and journalistically "false equivalence" opinion. jps (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus seems to think that Sara C. Nelson is a reliable source for the contention that some crop circles are not of human origin. [4] Why do we let people who uncritically accept dreck such as that make reverts on these kinds of articles? jps (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Enfield Poltergeist

Enfield Poltergeist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ghughesarch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently traveling about from crop circles to poltergeists, friends, it seems like we've got a case of a concern troll true believer in the paranormal.

jps (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not, actually, I just don't like the sort of aggressive skepticism you are pushing, apparently unaware that it's not a neutral point of view. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You think pointing out that magicians and skeptics revealed this particular hoax to be a hoax is pushing "aggressive skepticism"? That's rather startling. In any case, I haven't seen any reliable sources which dispute this point. Have you? jps (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Magicians and skeptics claimed to have revealed it as a hoax. Just as others who were directly involved claimed that it was not. Now, it may not suit your particular world view to have people making those claims, but it is not an objective fact that the skeptical view, just because it's the skeptical view, is true. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

People often complain that fringe viewpoints (such as the notion that poltergeists are real, supernatural powers exist, aliens abduct people, the government is beaming voices into your brain, etc.) are not being "portrayed neutrally" in article space. This essay might help clarify: WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not really the issue, either in this case or with the Crop Circles article which the same editor has raised above. What is the issue is that jps is extrapolating from sources that offer rational explanations, to support the specific statement that "the case was revealed to be a hoax by magicians and sceptics". The alternative wording to which he objects is that "the case is considered to be a hoax by magicians and sceptics". That is much closer to the objective truth and it does not involve pushing a fringe viewpoint to say so. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Skeptics "concluded", not "revealed", that it was hoax (actually, they concluded that Janet cheated). "Claimed" and "revealed" in this context are WP:WEASEL words.- MrX 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to thank MrX for an excellent edit to the article which matches the source given and addresses the issue as far as I am concerned.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Though I'm not overwhelmingly happy with being described as "a concern troll true believer in the paranormal". That was not WP:CIVILGhughesarch (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It was more than just a "conclusion". They systematically showed why it was a hoax. If "revealed" is a weasel word, it's because it gives the simple exposure of the hoax too much import. The debunking was rather simple and mundane, to be honest. jps (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[5] And now we have claims that we cannot say that the skeptics "showed" that this is a "hoax" but rather that they "concluded" it. Why is that? The source uses the word "conclude" only because the summary is found at the end of the article in the conclusion, but it is pretty clear all along the way that what the most reliable sources are doing is showing how this is a hoax. Are we offending the sensibilities of the reader by using simple wording and pointing out that skeptics showed this case was a hoax? I'm really at a loss for why editors are so fond of such delicate kid-glove handling of what's clearly a poorly executed hoax. jps (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently parked at the article are the two fringe-POV-supporting editors who responded in this thread who are in favor of marginalizing the facts of the matter (that skeptics and magicians showed that the case was a hoax). Help breaking through this nonsense would be appreciated. jps (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The best way to "break through this nonsense" would be for jps to stop making personal attacks on other editors who are trying to steer a neutral course and to stop pushing their "paranormal activity doesn't exist and anyone who believes it does is not competent to edit" agenda. It is totally unscientific to say that something doesn't exist - any reputable scientist will only say we have no reliable evidence for it. I believe that the edits made by jps to this article show clear confirmation bias. Richerman (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is true. The scientifically accurate statement would be that there is no remotely credible evidence that such phenomena exist, all observations are generally fully consistent with other explanations, and their existence would violate multiple principles of physics as currently understood, and require a wholesale rewriting of such fundamental concepts as the laws of thermodynamics. You can't prove anegative, after all. However, as a good first approximation, it is fair to say that they can't and don't exist. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

While I thank User:LuckyLouie for allowing the baton to be passed to him, I am a bit concerned that the current lede violates WP:ITA in the sense that it may imply that only the named sceptics believe it to be a hoax when, in reality, that's the only solid evidence we have for what this "manifestation" is. Can someone who isn't likely to be knee-jerk reverted make a pass at trying to mitigate this problem? jps (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't want the damn baton, I was just trying to find a workable solution. As you know, mainstream science does not issue opinions about tabloid press sensations that are subsequently exploited by paranormal hucksters. The best we have are magicians and skeptics who have looked into such things and smelled fraud. Maybe the way to go with the Enfield poltergeist article is the way Tina Resch is handled. The paranormalists opinion isn't even mentioned in the lead since it's so marginalized. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I really fail to see what the problem is here. This is not an article about a fringe theory - it's an article about some events reported by newspapers and turned into fictional drama for television. The lead says, in essence, that some, but not all, members of the Society for Psychical Research were convinced something unexplainable was happening and others who investigated found evidence of fraud. That's not giving credence to any claims - it's simply reporting what happened. We can't say what anyone else thinks was going on unless their opinions have been reported. Unfortunately one editor thinks that because poltergeist activity doesn't seem to be possible with our present understanding of how the universe works we have to say that it was all fraudulent. However, it's not for us to say that, we just report what the sources say. Making our own assumptions about what was going on would be synthesis - something that has no place in wikipedia. As is, is the article says much more about what the sceptics said than it does about the claims made by the believers. One way forward would be to include more material from sources like this that directly discuss the case. Richerman (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't see what the problem is either - and the way Tina Resch is dealt with is to have the sentence "Skeptics and debunkers have declared the case a hoax" in the lede. That's not nearly as strong as what was causing problems in the wording preferred by some skeptics in the Enfield Poltergeist article - "revealed" to be a hoax goes beyond what the sources will support as it implies a definite and final conclusion. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't give equal validity to facilely incorrect claims. That's the angle. jps (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Saying "some members of the Society for Psychical Research such as Maurice Grosse and Guy Lyon Playfair believed the haunting to be genuine" is not giving validity to their claims - it's merely reporting what happened. Richerman (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of the Society for Psychical Research are not reliable sources when it comes to claims of the paranormal. Mentioning their ignorance-based comments in the lede is problematically prominently promoting unreliable sources. jps (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? There are all sorts of third party sources. I'm not sure where you're seeing Members of the Society for Psychical Research listed as a reference for claims of the paranormal. - MrX 20:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Their opinions are referenced in the lede. jps (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And it's quite clear that they are their opinions and not necessarily fact. There really isn't a problem. Looking at other articles about "paranormal" topics, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that the lede for each must proclaim "this is all made up".Ghughesarch (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

By paying attention to these obscure and ignorant opinions without clarifying that they are obscure and ignorant, Wikipedia is violating undue weight. jps (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of their being "believers", the view arrived at by the first two people to directly investigate the case, while it was still going on, (and who were largely responsible for bringing it to wider attention) cannot be dismissed as "obscure and ignorant" in the context of the article or the overall notability of the subject. It would be violating undue weight to have only their notions referenced in the lede, but they are set in a proper context. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be original research. The article is fine. Let it go.- MrX 21:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no original research. The most reliable sources indicate that poltergeists don't exist and that people who entertain the notion that they do are unreliable. Moreover, we have plenty of reliable sources that this particular incident is a hoax. That's what the article should indicate. Right now, it doesn't. jps (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

MrX is right WP:Stick Ghughesarch (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Giving equal validity to paranormal believers is against Wikipedia policy. jps (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is not giving "equal validity" to believers in the paranormal, the lede is simply explaining what is claimed to have happened, and who made the claims, since that is important to an overall understanding of the subject. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:Members of the Society for Psychical Research are not reliable sources when it comes to claims of the paranormal … actually what better sources would there be for what 'the Society for Psychical Research' believes to be true? Their beliefs are not presented as fact, I endorse most of what Ghughesarch says above. The article (about a fairly trivial incident), seems fairly sceptical to me.Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, as to what those particular members thought, it's pretty much perfect. Interesting that Joshua P. Schroeder hasn't felt the need to aggressively revert as "unreliable" the doubts cast by other members of the SPR, which are mentioned in the next line.Ghughesarch (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not surprising that the two investigators who preferentially believe in psychic powers and ghost stories were the ones who credulously accepted the claims while the ones who tended to take skeptical stances did not. The reader deserves to know about this kind of confirmation bias. jps (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, we're not allowed to include original research in our edits. We're supposed to follow sources and present information from a neutral stance.- MrX 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not original research. Read the biographies that are linked on Wikipedia! They two who accepted the existence of ghosts were the ones who were duped as amateur psychic phenomena believers and the ones who were "skeptical" were known to be skeptical as professors of psychology. Do you deny this? jps (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Tepper Aviation

Tepper Aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})

There are reliable sources for the CIA-Tepper Aviation connection (e.g. [6][7]), however, anything CIA tends to drum up original research by fringe thinkers. My impression is that this article has been built upon a fair amount of primary source material and OR, but I'm hoping I can get additional opinions. (Not sure if this is related to Atlantic Gulf Airlines founded by Tom Tepper.) Thanks! - Location (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Having an article that reports what reliable secondary sources say about the airline is one thing. But huge sections sourced to WP:PRIMARY business records reeks of investigative reporting, which is not what Wikipedia does. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology should not be a child of Category:Pseudoscience

Pseudoarchaeology is a fringe type of archaeology, not fringe science, as archaeology in English speaking countries is not taught as a science but as part of humanities or social sciences. I tried to change this but was reverted, and have started a discussion at Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology. I did this after reading the discussion on the talk page here about a new list, and my desire to have it as a separate subject at Wikiproject Skepticism. Doug Weller (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There really ought to be an overarching category of "pseudo-scholarship", I think. These are very much linked topics, they have a common ancestor but are not on the same branch I would agree. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ġebel ġol-Baħar

Fringe article that I've worked on. Creator just re-added material sourced to a blog. Doug Weller (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

See reply on the article's talk page. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to reply there. Good faith non-fringe editor but disagreement on sourcing. Doug Weller (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Evangeline Adams

Seems to be almost entirely sourced to very biased sources. The standard historical crank page - lots of praise, no mainstream commentary. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The PBS link appears to be the only reliable source, but it doesn't give much information on her. It does appear that she is likely notable per GNews archives. - Location (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed some of the more obviously bogus sources. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Transhumanist politics

Talk:Transhumanist politics - can we come up with a new form of existence for a political party, by claiming third-party sources citing a publicity campaign constitute RS verification for the claims made? - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy Hunt

Dorothy Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})

Resolved

 – Article redirected per discussion below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy Hunt, wife of Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt, died in the 1972 crash of United Airlines Flight 553 carrying $10,000. Depending upon who you believe, the money was earmarked for legal defense, an investment, or hush money. As incredible as it sounds, some people believe that the CIA brought down an airliner in Chicago in order to kill her. And if you believe Spartacus, apparently Robert J. Groden, Carl Oglesby, Peter Dale Scott, Sherman Skolnick, and Alan J. Weberman are among those who believe she was murdered. Question: Is a stand-alone article warranted or should this be redirected to United Airlines Flight 553#Conspiracy theories? Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No, a stand-alone biography isn't remotely warranted - the article is a classic WP:COATRACK, using a supposed 'biography' as a platform to promote a conspiracy theory. If any material from this belongs in the 'conspiracy theories' article, it needs a complete rewrite too - as it stands it is full of weasel words, and appears to lack proper sourcing for several of the statements made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a really bad article. Even beyond it's being a Pro-FRINGE coatrack the sourcing is incredibly poor. I'd merge anything that is reasonably sourced and not already in the conspiracy article and then just redirect it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that no stand alone biography is needed as this is a BIO1E. I recommend just redirecting to the plane crash article instead instead of pushing readers to the section discussing a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

+1 -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

 Redirected to United Airlines Flight 553 -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've cleaned-up the redirects. - Location (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Fred Crisman

Fred Crisman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})

Fred Crisman was a hoaxer. He made claims that led to the "Maury Island incident" (see previous discussions on WP:FTN here and here), then he and other said he was involved in the assassination of JFK. Regarding the first, I find a trivial mention in GNews.[8] Regarding the second, he is briefly mentioned as "Fred Lee Chrisman" in the HSCA's report discussion of the three tramps.[9] Everything else appears to come from fringe sources or primary sources (i.e. Jim Garrison's investigation). Is there enough for a stand-alone article or should this be redirected? - Location (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: I'm not sure if you have any thoughts on this one, but I'm pinging you for feedback based on your familiarity with the "Maury Island incident" and the previous discussions on it that you opened. Thanks! - Location (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems Crisman is considered within fringe conspiracy believers to be a nexus of somethingorother, according to this. If more objective sources such as that one could be found, there might be a chance the article could be written from a more disinterested academic point of view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've added it to the article. - Location (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The article looks much better after LuckyLouie's work. This appears to fall under that category of "notable hoaxer". - Location (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This might be appropriate to include as an EL if it could be found on a non-crank hosting site. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the description of Category:People associated with the assassination of John F. Kennedy to state "...people who are known or alleged to have been identified with the assassination..." because of this article.(diff) - Location (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture again

A pro-acupuncture editor is insisting on tagging Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as having a "systemic bias towards Western scientific sources". This is, of course, fatuous: there is no such thing as Western science, there's just science, and since acupuncture is portrayed as a medical intervention rather than a religion then core policy means that scientific sources are exactly where we should source most content. You might as well tag evolution as having a sysmtemic bias towards materialist scientific sources. Guy (Help!) 06:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Rodney Stich (again)

Seeking additional input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rodney Stich. Thanks! - Location (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Scientology

The article on Scientology is stale and undergoing revision and peer review. There's no active dispute or editwars, we're just seeking advice (or aid) on improving the article. Feoffer (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a refreshingly different post from what we normally get around here. I will take a look when I have a few minutes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

William S. Donaldson / Donaldson Report

William S. Donaldson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})

Donaldson Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})

William S. Donaldson wrote a report (i.e. the Donaldson Report) stating that terrorists brought down TWA Flight 800 via two missiles and that there was a conspiracy to cover it up. Do either of these articles have stand-alone notability, or should they be redirected to TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories? Thanks! - Location (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Support D-R for both articles. There is nothing that warrants a stand alone article for either subjects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. It looks like Orangemike took care of it. - Location (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Films" by Gary Null

Mr Bill Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a one-man press office for Gary Null. The "films" on which he has been creating articles are of course anti-science propaganda. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And he has at least one more he hasn't posted yet underway in his sandbox. Interestingly the sandbox is just a concatenation of all the articles he's worked on so it's a handy quick reference to what he's been up to. -- Krelnik (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't be silly JzG! Totally incorrect statement! Gary Null is a notable figure who has made over 50 films and before I made some entries have a guess how many of his films were in Wikipedia? This is after all supposed to be an encyclopedia, is it not?Mr Bill Truth (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CGTW # 14 applies. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Null is not a "notable figure", he is a minor crank. The total budget for all his "films" would probably not cover the catering bill for a day's shooting on a real movie. The correct number of these films to have separate Wikipedia articles is probably zero, but redirects to a list on the article on Null might be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if the existance of Gary Null and some of his films on Wikipedia offend your sensibilities JzG, but the day of Wikipedia being an extension of people's belief systems or the will / greed-lust of powerful entities has not been officially sanctioned by any higher power. Not that I can see yet. Very sorry Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the existence of Gary Null. I do care that his fatuous opinions and inconsequential "films" are promoted as if they have some objective merit, when there is no actual evidence that this is so. There are bullshit movies that are notable (Zeitgeist, What The Bleep etc). For these, a decent body of independent critical analysis exists. Null's "films" have for the most part achieved nothing beyond acknowledgement of their existence, and Wikipedia is not a directory of conspiracist claptrap "films" or anything else. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking things over quickly it appears that Poverty Inc. got some notice but the others didn't. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Part of the reason for that might be that a film with the same name was released in the same year, although some notables are interviewed in both films. I support JzG's proposal: these articles should redirect to a list of films at Gary Null. I wouldn't object to brief summaries (say 30-50 words at most) of the content. But there's no need to reproduce the production details here; external links can provide that information. Roches (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

United States House Select Committee on Assassinations

United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})

In Talk:United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, additional opinions are requested regarding the inclusion of material about Willem Oltmans and his claims regarding George de Mohrenschildt. Thanks! - Location (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The same IP appears to also be adding this material to the George de Mohrenschildt article. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start with that one. It appears to be another crap compilation of primary sources and fringe sources about someone of marginal notability. - Location (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ourang Medan

Ourang Medan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A fringe feast of spicy speculation and rancid sources featuring a dash of WP:OR for flavor. Includes an EL link to what's obviously a crank letter received by the CIA labeled as a "CIA memo" on the subject. Bon appetit! - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Gary Null (copied from COIN)

• Mr Bill Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Gary Nulll, his films, and articles into which references to films have been added
  • Gary Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by MBT. up for AfD here)
  • Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by MBT. up for Afd here)
  • Poverty Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by MBT)
  • American Veterans: Discarded and Forgotten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by MBT. PRODed here)
  • Vaccine Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by MBT. PRODed here)
• Articles to which references to films above were added by MBT, or created in the course of working on films
  • Percy Schmeiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Vandana Shiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Shiv Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Bruce Lipton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Jeffrey M. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Stourbridge News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by MBT, used as source in film article)

• Film festival showing these films and its sponsor
  • Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by MBT) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival
  • Black Mountain Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by MBT) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Mountain Press

• Anti-GMO generally
  • Philip Bereano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created by MBT)
  • Ben Goldsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • The Monsanto Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • A Rock Star Bucks A Coffee Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• PSCI/alt med generally
  • Joseph Mercola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • NaturalNews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Essiac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Mānuka honey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Notholithocarpus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• All articles created here - several are redirects per SEO practices

Mr Bill Truth has been writing promotionally about Gary Null and his films, film festivals that show his films, as well as anti-GMO topics and PSCI/altmed generally. After seeing this thread at the FRINGE noticeboard, i approached MBT on his Talk page here, asking about any connection with external interests relevant to his editing, which did not go well. I have had content disputes with MBT so this is not surprising. It may be that there is no COI and MBT is using Wikipedia for advocacy; COI is a subset of advocacy. I will not comment here further and will leave this for the community to discuss. I have notified MBT of this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't got time to refer to this in full as I have other things on the go. But in due course I would like to show you that I believe Jytdog is not being forthright. If this is being used to slander me or get me kicked off then this is wrong and highly immoral. Of course I totally dispute all what has been said! Yes I have been motivated to make a balance in Wikipedia as something was pointed out to me recently. This has alerted me to something that is taking place. All articles that are notable belong here. Sadly if some parties don't like them being here because they represent something they're opposed to, then that is unfortunate but no grounds for censorship. I'm here to do my bit for Wikipedia and get articles that deserve to be here created and improved. Please take note of what I have put here as I do intend to revisit this soon. Please whoever oversees this, keep an open mind, be honest which I know you'll be and we'll see how this act done here will evolve. We might be able to use this process here to turn up some other info that may be of interest so those who have an interest. More on that later. Many thanks in advance Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that immediately sets off COI alarms, but I agree that the advocacy of the edits is problematic. This isn't really the place to deal with that though. SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have AfD'd a couple more of the articles (italics). I think this user is a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)