Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

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

User creating articles on countless Theosophy books

See the recent article Thought-Forms (book), it may look scholarly from a first glance, but most of the sources are from Theosophical books and it reads like promotion. There is also Occult or Exact Science?, How Theosophy Came to Me, Man: Whence, How and Whither, a Record of Clairvoyant Investigation (all of the sources are Theosophical), From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan, The Occult World, K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. The same pattern here, all created by the same editor. There are others.

Another example, The Esoteric Character of the Gospels, Philosophers and Philosophicules etc. Basically if you strip these articles down there would be only a handful of reliable neutral sources that discuss these books. The user making these articles SERGEJ2011 only edits in relation to Theosophy, I suspect this user is associated or works for the Theosophical Society Adyar. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look yet, but are these book reviews of probably non-notable books? or discussions of probably non-notable ideas from within these books? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"are these book reviews of probably non-notable books"

Book reviews? I think you did not notice the years of publications in some of these books. One dates to 1901, another to 1886, etc. They are over a century old. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There have been quite a few theosophy related periodicals over the years. If they have done book reviews (and I don't know anything there one way or another) and if reviews in such publications are sufficient to establish notability (I don't know anything there either) then there probably isn't much we can do about the articles existing, although we might tell others to look in outside sources for views outside the belief system in question.

Personally, I would love to see a lot more articles on the essential books of most major belief systems, as such separate articles can go into greater depth about the important but sometimes minor points of doctrine. They might however be really problematic if those points of doctrine relate specifically to theories which were them or are now counted as fringey. I'm not sure exactly where in such cases the mainstream refutation material should be placed. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The same user is creating more and more Theosophical articles that contain little to no criticisms and mostly source to Theosophy sources. Here is his latest Christianity and Theosophy. Yet this user gets away with it, no other users or moderators are actually checking what he is writing. There is a serious NPOV issue here but I am not going to go on about it. Nobody seems to care here. Just let the guy create 1 million fringe Theosophy articles then. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

His articles creations like this: The Esoteric Character of the Gospels are not notable. What academics have reviewed this publication? The entire article is sourced to obscure Theosophy publications, some of which cannot be checked so we have no idea if what he has written is accurate or not. He does the same on every article he creates, yet nobody seems to have picked up on this apart from me. I thought new article creations are supposed to be checked? This is not a good thing. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Lol this user is using this Theosophy wiki as a valid source [1] and quoting from it in several of his articles. I am amazed nobody has picked up on this. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

His recent article Christianity and Theosophy cites:

Ellwood R. S. (16 August 2011). "Bailey, Alice Ann Latrobe Bateman". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017. ———— (November 2000). "Christian Ritual in Theosophical Perspective". Quest. Theosophical Society in America. 88 (6): 225–227. Retrieved 26 October 2017. ———— (7 April 2012). "Christianity, Theosophical Approaches to". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017. ———— (2012-03-15). "Leadbeater, Charles Webster". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017.

The "Theosopedia" is not a reliable source. It is a public wiki used by Theosophists that contains little to no reliable sources. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

SERGEJ2011 has been adding the Theosopedia reference to a number of articles, [2]. They should all be removed. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

According to previous conversations visible on his user talk page, @Dougweller:, possibly among others, have discussed this with him before, including apparently once one of the books you mention above. I can and do think that at least some of them possibly qualify as notable, and will make an attempt in the next few days to find sources. However, I would also welcome input on his opinion about whether a recurrent behavioral problem might be involved here. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there are copyvio issues. EG Thought-Forms (book) seems to have a lot copied from one source.[3] which was also used for Christianity and Theosophy. No time right now but it needs to be cleaned up and rev/del'd. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: you found some in January and warned him. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The overlap is all quotations, not strictly copyvio, but perhaps excessive use of non-free content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, Thoughtforms uses about 620 words of quotation (actually that may include text not in quotes, see my comments on the next article). I remember Maggie saying we about 240 words was acceptable, and clearly over 600 is not acceptable (at least that's my firm opinion) and is probably overuse of a source. At Christianity and Theosophy I see that our article says (note I'm using brackets to make it clear what is actually being quoted)

[Besant named this esoteric knowledge the Greater Mysteries. The Lesser Mysteries meant the partial uncovering of the deep truths that must first be assimilated before entry into the Greater Mysteries. And Greater Mysteries can only be passed on "'from mouth to ear' as a pupil becomes qualified."] and the source says

[Besant calls this occult knowledge the Greater Mysteries. Written teaching is the Lesser Mysteries meant to partially unveil deep truths that must first be mastered before entry into the Greater Mysteries is possible. And Greater Mysteries can only be passed on from mouth to ear as a pupil becomes qualified.]

Changing a few words doesn't make it not copyvio. I suspect that there is a lot of this - straight copyvio, very close paraphrase and overuse of quotations. I'm not sure what to do about this, it would be a lot of work to go through and fix it paragraph by paragraph, and remember for my comments I've only looked at one source, Earwig shows apparent issues with multiple sources. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In SERGEJ2011's edit summaries when he creates some of these Theosophy articles he sometimes says they are "translated" from the Russian. I have noticed some of his spelling looks like it is poor translation from a Russian source. Is he copying these entire articles from a Russian website or Wiki? 117.20.41.10 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth checking the Russian Wikipedia. Serge identifies as Russian and a Theosophist on his user-page. He might be copying material from Russian Wikipedia Theosophy articles. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If there is a good chance or certainty of copyvios, maybe ANI or, alternately, ask him to set up future changes in draft space for someone else to review for copyvios or language before adding to mainspace? John Carter (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard mentioned in media

"An internal Wikipedia forum meant to combat conspiracy theories" has to be this place. Interesting article, too: A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup, it's this place. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

These one-time editors’ lack of experience became clear when they began voting in favor of keeping the article on Wikipedia – a practice not employed in the English version of Wikipedia since 2016, when editors voted to exchange the way articles are deleted for a process of consensus-based decision through discussion. Mmm? The vote-and-discussion hybrid method of handling issues has been ongoing for a while. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Few articles in the popular press reflect an accurate understanding of how Wikipedia works. As these things go, the article was better than many I've seen. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

And then point if this is?Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, having looked at the article in question, which seems to me to be more about the man than the deletion of his article, I think that article, along with one or two others I've seen that are primarily biographical, is probably enough to get his article recreated and probably kept now. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't help but wonder whether this is a case of English-speaking bias. There might be many reliable sources in German that may have established his notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, yes I can see this, but I find it odd that this occurred not because of a lack of notability, but due to his sudden change of beleife, which is not what Fringe should be about.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes... we have many articles on proponents of fringe theories (indeed most are notable BECAUSE of their fringe advocacy) ... what matters isn’t what this guy believes, but whether independent sources have discussed him (beyond passing mentions). He sure seems like the sort of person who would likely to have enough sources that discuss him to pass GNG... both for his academic work and for his advocacy. So we should definitely look to see whether there are any German sources, and re-examine the English ones. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Ya know, after receiving some complaints on my talk page I did a source search and found some German sources. All of them either by the subject or passing mentions, with the focus being on his work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked at this fellow's Google Scholar profile and at least on that basis his wiki-notability with respect to WP:PROF is at best borderline. We have lots of bios on borderline or non-notable academics that slide through under the radar because no one is really looking. What seems to have happened here is that people started looking. My interpretation is that his article wasn't deleted because he is a creationist (we have lots of articles on creationists), but because his creationism brought the scrutiny that all BLPs should have but too often don't. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Next question... has he become notable BECAUSE he supports intelligent design? Are there sources (other than the one that inspired this thread) that highlight his advocacy (for example, media sources that quote him when discussing ID, or refer to him as being a prominent advocate of ID). Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We're at a point where he may be reaching levels of WP:BIO famous for having his Wikipedia page removed. SMH. jps (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Famous for having been on WP. It could happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Josh has a good point in indicating that we don't want to enable individuals to game the system and establish notability based on being found non-notable here. Having said that, I have no clue at all as to how to work to make sure it doesn't happen again. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It would require a change in policy. My guess is the community would not be okay with it. jps (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Re "we don't want to enable individuals to game the system and establish notability based on being found non-notable here", so my plan to become part of a juicy scandal involving weasels and politicians (but I repeat myself...) in order to get my own Wikipedia page is off? :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry. The evil wikipedian cabal may erase your English Wikipedia page, but you can still keep your German, Italian, and Danish pages. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Remember that the article subject can’t “game the system” on his own... we still need sources to comment on the subject. A person can not become notable simply by having his article deleted from Wikipedia... however a person could become notable by having reliable sources NOTE that his article got deleted. It’s the coverage in sources that establishes Notability, not the deletion itself. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but if a topic or person might have a friend of some sort in the independent media, getting that to happen might not be that hard, particularly if what is involved is a book or writer or topic that has some sort of related periodical. I'm thinking of some non-notable religious groups and writers who would love to have the apparent legitimacy some think is conferred by having an article here. So, for instance, one source I know says there are about 20,000 distinct Christian groups or denominations out there, counting all the independent churches separately, including the internet churches. This sort of thing might work for a lot of them. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Highly unlikely... and if proven we can claim that the source is not “independent”. The fact is, people become WP:Notable for all sorts of silly things. All it takes for you to be Notable is for sources to take note of you. So, someone CAN become notable for something that occurs on Wikipedia... if sources take note of it. It won’t happen often... but it can happen. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, part of what we tell people who are trying to get a fringe-related article published is to get noticed by reliable sources. Here's an example of this sort of thing happening. Makes our job harder when they do this sort of thing, but I can imagine the way that the article would develop now would be "... is a paleontologist who in 2016 began to argue against evolution and in favor of creationist points. A fellow the Discovery Institute, he achieved a level of media fame after his Wikipedia biography was deleted after community consensus determined that he did not fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Subsequent complaints promoted by the Discovery Institute's public relations team were picked up by Haaretz and the Christian News Network."

However, this seems to be something of a flash in the pan. They must be really excited to have gotten Haaretz's notice. But the penetration beyond that seems rather pitiable.

jps (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy-theory addled user attempting to POV push to add hoax information to articles via word-salad edits

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. For the most egregious example, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier&diff=809663502&oldid=809659332 "We now know that Fusion GPS executives are being uncooperative with the investigation and have pleaded the 5th; the Clinton campaign funded part of the Steele dossier, there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton, and the FBI also funded part of that dossier." User needs a block.209.140.43.55 (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Then report them on the correct forum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Isn't this the conspiracy theory noticeboard?209.140.43.55 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Yes, but the user is not a conspiracy theory, you need to take it to ani if you think a user needs blocking.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deep trance identification

Some new fringey material added to this already fringe-heavy article. An unsourced mention of someone called "Gilligan" leads me to suspect the involvement of somebody who recently had their own page deleted on notability grounds. This should be AfD'd unless better / more sources are forthcoming. Seems to just be promoting one book. Famous_dog (c) 07:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD is just not going to happen: once I started searching for the phrase in books, it was pretty clearly laid out (unlike the woo-buzzword salad of the article). It's a hypno-therapeutic technique of imagining yourself as another person (see "Deep+trance+identification" here which has escaped into the self-improvement wild to become a way to "steal" the skills of some mentor whom you don't really have. You can learn to play golf or make a lot of money, apparently. It seems to originate from Milton Erickson and is connected to the whole neurolinguistic programming mess. The best we can hope for here is some woo-free assessment of this stuff, and, well, translating the article into ordinary English so people have any idea what it's really about. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A flat-Earther’s plan to launch himself in a homemade rocket has been postponed -- again

Blimp or Rocket?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/27/a-flat-earthers-plan-to-launch-himself-in-a-homemade-rocket-has-been-postponed-again/

Key quotes:

"Theories discussed during the interview included NASA being controlled by round-Earth Freemasons and Elon Musk making fake rockets from blimps."

" 'John Glenn and Neil Armstrong are Freemasons. Once you understand that, you understand the roots of the deception.' "

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... according to our List of Freemasons, Neil Armstrong was never a Freemason. Perhaps the rocket fellow has him confused with Buzz Aldren. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If this guy gets another article of this length about him he might actually pass WP:ANYBIO and end up with an article. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You have to admit, that Elon Musk fellow sure is good at making a blimp look like a rocket. I was totally fooled! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking for assistance with an article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It probably deserves a mention in the section Flat Earth#Resurgence in the era of celebrity and social media.

And I'm continually amazed at how often mainstream media is clueless about the concept we know as Wikipedia:Deny recognition.

Personally, I have to wonder if he's really a flat-earth convert as he claimed. If I was a hobby rocket enthusiast, as he appears to be, and wanted to fund my project to build and launch a home-made manned rocket, and had already failed one Kickstarter effort, I might consider tapping a population of true believers willing to donate to a cause. Maybe his "conversion" is more of an ends-justify-the-means kind of thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

viXra

There's some discussion over at WikiProject Mathematics about the article on viXra. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Eccentric Jesus theorist bios

In cleaning up after someone stuck the Jesus Wife Fragment into a bunch of irrelevant places, I've come across a collection of bios of people who wrote popular books with various more-or-less fringey theories on Christian origins, particularly attached to the Jesus bloodline notion, though there are a few "Paulianity" people too. As far as I can tell, that's what these people are known for, because with a couple of exceptions for people who wrote their book earlier, the bios appeared shortly after their books were published. The bios, however, consistently read like supposedly notable academics who happened to write a book on the side. So I'm looking at the following:

• James Tabor wrote The Jesus Dynasty
• Jeffrey Bütz wrote The Secret Legacy of Jesus
• Barrie Wilson was a co-author of The Lost Gospel: Decoding the Ancient Text that Reveals Jesus' Marriage to Mary the Magdalene
• Hugh J. Schonfield wrote The Passover Plot
• Hyam Maccoby wrote The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity among a bunch of similar works; he also shows up as a antisemitism expert
• Robert Eisenman wrote James the Brother of Jesus; he also is a DSS guy and got involved in the Talpiot tomb mess, so he doesn't fit the pattern as much as the others

The last two guys are probably always going to have their own articles. The others, I'm not so sure. Most of them seem primarily notable as authors of these controversialist works. Is there cause for merging them back into those articles? Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Schonfield certainly deserves his own article. He was one of the original Dead Sea Scrolls team members and has written over 40 books. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ack, I forgot that—what comes of posting during lunch. OTOH The Passover Plot is largely devoid of reaction other than the word "controversial". Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Tabor has written other widely discussed books, like the one on Waco. There was a German TV show based on Butz's books, which probably helps him meet notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV edits on Joseph Banks Rhine and other parapsychology articles

There is a current SPI open about this user but as he is promoting fringe theories I mention it here so people can monitor the article because I believe this will be on-going on other articles. The user in question Ben Steigmann is a psychic believer who argues that J. B. Rhine's experiments actually demonstrated clairvoyance and telepathy. He uploads his POV version of the article [4] on his "Rhine Revival" account many times. He then deletes it knowing that his version will stay on the Wikipedia database. He then cites his Wikipedia edits as a 'valid' source on his anti-Wikipedia/pro-parapsychology research project on Wikiversity [5]. His project claims practically all Wikipedia articles are wrong on parapsychology and that all psychics were basically genuine. He has also been doing this sort of thing on the Frederic W. H. Myers article recently, uploading huge chunks of fringe material and spam from his Wikiversity project and then removing it so it is still stored in the database and he can link to it. I have requested that his edits are striked and they are entirely removed from the database but this has not yet happened.

As this user is doing this on two parapsychology articles, it is likely he is doing it on others on different accounts. Has anyone noticed a similar pattern on any other articles? If you do it is likely the same person. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I've revision deleted the repeatedly added, then deleted, content at Joseph Banks Rhine. Hope that helps — I'm frankly not sure if it perhaps needs an oversighter. And I've warned the Rhine Revival account. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for your help on this. The user has since turned up on another account and said he is not being confrontational with other users anymore but is now using this website for archive purposes. In other words he is using Wikipedia as a place to store his fringe material. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

He is now using his IP on the Frederic W. H. Myers talk-page claiming he has "refuted" the skeptics. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In regard to the removed edits on the Rhine article, he is complaining they have been "censored" [6]. This is cross-wiki abuse, so I guess I will have to take that up at the correct avenue. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The checkuser results came back and he has been blocked on four accounts [7]. I just reported Ben's cross-wiki abuse and socking on Wikiversity. A Wikiversity admin told me "Sorry, anonymous posts have no value in this discussion. Please move on." [8]. This is very sad. So I guess the abuse will continue into the future. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually considered registering as a Wikipedia user? It is free of charge. Dimadick (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

If I read the material over at the wikiversity talk page of the editor in question, @Abd: over there seems to think that the IP is someone's sockpuppet, and the IP accuses the named editor of being a sockpuppeteer. Isn't love grand? John Carter (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd is a known parapsychology advocate and pseudoscience promoter. He has been banned on Wikipedia for sock-puppeting himself and disruption a few years ago. He is a personal friend of Steigmann, they both do a lot of edits in promoting paranormal material on Wikiversity, there seems to be no rules over there on content. He will go massive lengths to try and clear Ben's name. Abd claims that a group of 'skeptical' editors are out to 'target' Ben. Ben was banned on four socks recently, yet according to Abd I am 'harrassing' Ben and his sock-puppetry is 'harmless'. I guess spamming the J. B. Rhine article like Ben did is harmless then. Like I said this will continue long into the future. Ben will continue to spam his 'pro-paranormal' content from from his Wikiversity project onto Wikipedia. He does it every few months. He needs to be blocked on Wikiversity but nobody over there seems to be interested in this cross-wiki abuse. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is interested but you can have you say here on the matter if you are, here. The reason I take this seriously is because this will not doubt happen again in the future. I will not be further responding. Abd who has been blocked on Wikipedia and elsewhere, is impossible to reason with. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I cannot access revdeleted edits to see their patterns. It seems that a lot of text is being copied. It would be interesting to know if those texts typically include common links which would suit for reporting at WT:WPSPAM for potential blacklisting... —PaleoNeonate – 06:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd has defended Steigmann. Abd is now stalking and harassing several skeptical Wikipedia editors. On his personal website (which I wont link to here), he has posted slanderous statements and the full dox, and personal details of user ජපස. He has also done the same to several other skeptical users who used to edit Wikipedia. Outrageous behaviour. 117.20.41.9 (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Constructal law

• Constructal law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a "law" proposed by Adrian Bejan that appears to have no currency outside his close circle. The article is blatant WP:SYN. I have nominated for deletion, but others may be sufficiently aware of the theory to be able to turn it into a neutral article that accurately reflects its status (if indeed it has any). Guy (Help!) 09:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)