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
Line 185: Line 185:


:[[John Michell (writer)]] is the right John Michell in this case. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
:[[John Michell (writer)]] is the right John Michell in this case. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::Doug Weller questioned whether Malwitz's view of the book should be mentioned. Per [[WP:NPOV]]: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Is [[Library Review]] now considered not an acceptable source? So long as it is considered acceptable, there is no reason not to mention Malwitz's view. It does not help the encyclopedia to look for reasons to exclude views from articles one personally disagrees with. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 01:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


== RfC: Democrats supporting [[MS-13]] ==
== RfC: Democrats supporting [[MS-13]] ==

Revision as of 01:00, 10 May 2019

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

    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:

    Article alerts


    Articles for deletion

    • 22 Jul 2024 – Family Constellations (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ජපස (t · c); see discussion (8 participants; relisted)

    Redirects for discussion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split


    Template_talk:Alternative_medicine_sidebar#Medical_conspiracy_theories_—_alternative_and_pseudo‑medicine

    If you have an opinion on the title/content of this sidebar, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this an accurate reflection of the consensus on climate change?

    On the Dan Crenshaw article, some editors have edit-warred the following bolded language out of the article:

    • In 2018, Crenshaw said that climate change is real but that there is a "very reasonable debate going on" about the extent to which human activity contributes to it, "whether it's 100 percent or whether it's 1 percent" (the scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change).[1]

    It is my understanding of WP:FRINGE that the bolded text belongs in the article, as it clarifies to readers that scientists do not disagree that human activity is a primary (versus a minor) contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Does Crenshaw name any sane scientist who considers 1% possible? The bold text is certainly right. We could even write "the primary contributor" and it would still be right. --mfb (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPOV is core policy, and the mainstream view has to appear to contextualize the fringe view. Any editors edit-warring the text away should be warned of discretionary sanctions for this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the current composition in the article is misleading. In the source he refers to hurricanes, not climate change in general. He then goes on to say it is misleading to say "this hurricane was caused by climate change" and questions evidence that climate change increases storm activity. That is much more specific than the articles makes it sound. --mfb (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what the source says: "“I just think there's a very reasonable debate going on, on exactly what human activity does to climate change, whether it's 100 percent or whether it's 1 percent,” Crenshaw said. “Is there a percentage? Yeah, there probably is — certainly. But to attribute one weather event to it, and also there's plenty of other studies that show we're about average for the amount of hurricanes that we have in this country.” Crenshaw said there simply is not enough data to have a “good indication” of the impact of climate change on storm intensity, and those who say otherwise are “cherrypicking.”" He talks about both human contributions to climate change and whether climate change causes greater storm intensity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The storm activity is also mentioned directly before: "Litton and Crenshaw agree climate change is real, but disagree over the extent to which human activity is creating more intense storms." The percentages could refer to the storms. I don't see him mentioning climate change elsewhere (he agrees with Trump's decision about the Paris agreement according to his website, but motivates it by the energy industry), so unfortunately that article seems to be the only useful source. --mfb (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The POV in this section is pretty palpable. In any case, since acceptance or denial of climate change, or the extent to which human activity contributes to it, isn't a political position, I've just removed the statement entirely. His views on related policy should probably stay though, like the bit about the Paris Agreement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, here is the debate in question.[2] I don't have time to sift through it for the relevant part, but I'm leaving it here in case someone wants to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • While this source doesn't explicitly cover this, the question of how much can be attributed to human activity is covered in our articles on Attribution of recent climate change and Climate_change#Causes. Quick summary: anyone who puts the human percentage at 0% or 100% is an idiot who we should be discussing here on the fringe theories noticeboard. There are a bunch of scientists working on this, and there are also a bunch of politicians trying to spin it it various directions. Just to pick one source, [3] says "Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects." and "The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate." So the contributions of TSI are definitely larger than 0% and smaller than 100%. Is TSI a major factor? Probably not, according to Attribution of recent climate change#Solar activity. Does it have any effect? almost certainly yes. Is the evaluation of how big the effect is influenced by politics? Yeah, probably a bit. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: WSJ editorial board's promotion of fringe science

    There is a RfC on The Wall Street Journal article that relates to the subject of this noticeboard.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe Theory of the Week: Drinking industrial bleach cures 95% of all diseases

    'Church' to offer 'miracle cure' despite FDA warnings against drinking bleach --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    See Miracle Mineral Supplement. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    Drink enough and it's 100%! Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Rope worms ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Extra content for the most fringy of my WP:FTN henchmen:

    Look at these magnetic therapy products on Amazon:

    That last one is extra special. It offers you magnetic therapy without containing any actual magnets. We have discovered Homeopathic magnetic therapy!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloody dangerous them homeomagmets. The further you are away from them, um, the higher, um, the um, attraction. ... Shall I stand in this corner? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As a regular contributor here, I am WP:BOLDLY asking for help with something that isn't fringe.

    This Shameless Plug (but I am plugging a proposed improvement to Wikipedia, so shameless plugs are allowed) is because I have a lot of respect for the abilities of my fellow noticeboard regulars. If anyone objects, go ahead and kill this cute little puppy delete this section.

    The 2019 redefinition of SI base units is scheduled to happen on 20 May 2019. I would like it to be Today's Featured Article on that day. To make this happen, it needs everything listed at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria (some of which it already has), followed by a nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, then a nomination at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Any help improving the article would be greatly appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So now you need the content-creation-bigots? Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [Self-redacted] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not the number of hyphens. Its the type of dash ;) Viva la em-dash! Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that I am not a content creation bigot who makes snarky comments all the time. No sir, not me. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as a newbie content-creation-bigot, I'll give you a couple of hints. You rightly list the stages you need, but you don't seem to have looked at the relevant pages, and how long the processes take. To have any chance to hitting the date, you need to launch the FAC almost immediately, and then respond very quickly to any comments. The oldest current FAC began on February 12th. Something will already be slated for TFA that day, but you might be able to move it. You don't have time to be messing about with the copy-editors guild, who mostly do little FAC work. You don't have time for a peer review either. And you need to be very nice to everybody. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: How to describe Julian Assange's promotion of Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories

    RfC on the WikiLeaks article[5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cynical? Debased? Corrupt? Manipulative? Hyperbolick (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Stargate Project talk page claim that it contains defamatory content

    See Talk:Stargate Project#Defamatory content. I just removed some text added by the same editor, User:Brian Josephson which was sourced to a fringe site.[6] Also see this post about the author of the source.[7] Doug Weller talk 17:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is he up to his tricks again. I'll have a look just so that I can say hello!! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Others may wish to comment following my own rather weak response. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He is at the Talk page arguing his personal opinion that cited sources are wrong and he is right. A potential time sink for someone with free hours to waste. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming good faith, he says he is Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize recipient. I'm sure he is given his edits. See also this article. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you knew he is the real BJ. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia appears to have trained Brian ‘’not’’ to edit his own bio in recent years, and he does normally use the talk page there, but he does have interesting ideas about evidence for his ideas! Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comic about a fringe theory

    http://smbc-comics.com/comic/fringe

    --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that I’m saying there is a problem, but that link took my iPad to some win an iphone contest, and I had to close the browser window in Safari. Just sayin. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Falun Gong

    Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not an article I know anything about, but there seems to be some disagreement with a new editor's edits. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mediator Need for Richat Structure article

    A neutral third party is needed to mediate a long ongoing discussion about how to address fringe material in the Richat Structure talk page before it gets out of hand Paul H. (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oxford professor argues invisible aliens are interbreeding with humans

    [8][9]

    He says that it is all caused by climate change....

    Interestingly, this is one of those cases where YouTube posts a link to Wikipedia to counter the pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is he a professor? His page at the institute seems to identify him as an instructor. jps (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch! One would hope that The Oxford Student would know the difference, but https://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/people/young-hae-chi definitely says "Instructor in Korean". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Could he be both?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be that what the Oriental Institute means by "instructor" is akin to "professor" in other scenarios. He is full-time faculty at least. jps (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Moral enhancement

    This is in the Transhumanist series, so I think is fringeyish. Dunno why it's on my watchlist and I'm having a few twitchy moments watching what I discovered are LSE students using our article to workshop the subject, or something. I have done my usual leadfoot impersonation on Talk, and rather than reverting more workshopping, decided to ask a couple of questions here, viz.

    We have people who are good with student projects don't we? Where do I find them? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Book of Exodus

    See[10] by User:Banquotruehero. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Biblical historical may be OK. However the rest of the passage there presents a minority view (even small minority) as factual. Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories

    Could someone please look at the latest edits to this article? I am not really up to speed on political fringe -- I mostly deal with science and medicine fringe. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't touched the article, but I did give the editor a DS alert and added 9/11 DS to the talk page of Global Guardian where the editor has made a similar edit - that article probably needs checking by someone, I've never seen it before. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Russian apartment bombings conspiracy

    Sorry to waste your time, but we've got a sentence on the above page which reads ""According to historians, the bombings were coordinated by the Russian state security services to bring Putin into the presidency."" I know nothing about the issue really. It's a tough issue because it's an extremely sensitive and political topic.

    We've already had some discussion about it here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Russian apartment bombings.

    This is all about confirming what historians say in their peer-reviewed publications. It's as simple as that. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

    • While the theory has been mentioned in academic sources, I can find no evidence of any peer-reviewed sources that actually argue in its support. I note that Dawisha's book was published by Simon and Schuster, not an academic publisher. Even so, her actually wording is "the political group around Putin could have masterminded the apartment bombings" (my emphasis). I don't think we can say "according to historians," unless there are sources that historians actually say that. It could be that without access to the complete evidence or reliable judicial inquiry that no conclusion judgment can be made. TFD (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think this is proper place. The claims (whatever they are) were sourced to multiple RS on the page (the book by Dawisha is just one of many). If something was not properly supported by specific sources, anyone can go to the page and fix it. However, two things are important. (a) One should actually read specific sources cited on the page (I would say "Darkness at Dawn" by David Satter and a couple of books by Felshtinsky with co-authors are really important). These books do directly support the statement in my opinion. (b) The peer-reviewed scientific publications (if any) are primary sources per WP:RS and not good. The best secondary sources are books, and particularly such books where whole chapters are dedicated to the subject. They should be used, and they were actually used on the page. But of course "every version is wrong version" and can be improved. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commented at RSN. We need to be careful with this subject as conspiracy theories abound. Furthermore, unlike 9/11, there is no definitive version on culpability - we need to attribute different mainstream theories.Icewhiz (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    History of the Jews in Poland

    In Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Recent edits on Postwar Property Restitution a couple of editors are asserting that Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? is an appropriate source for anti-Jewish violence and Jewish property in post-war Poland. The book is edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (more later), Wojciech Muszyński, and Pawel Styrna (seems to have been Chodakiewicz's student - per his LinkedIn he has gone on to Federation for American Immigration Reform). This is published by Leopolis Press which per [11] - "The holder of the Kościuszko Chair at IWP, Dr. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, is the Publisher of Leopolis Press.. Browsing through worldcat - there are some 5 books listed with Leopolis as a publisher - [12][13][14][15][16] - 2 of which list Chodakiewicz as the first author. Chodakiewicz himself has been extensively profiled by the SPLC in 2009 and 2017 for his views/writing/speaking on anti-Jewish violence, Jewish property, white genocide, antisemitism, gays, a speech at a far-right Ruch Narodowy rally, etc. AFAICT the book is generally ignored in mainstream academia - it did receive short and unfavorable reviews - e.g. here and here - pointing out that one of the chapters in the book "accuses such historians as [list] of using neo-Stalinist methods in their articles and reviews concerning Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    TLDR summary - Self published. SPLC profiled publisher/editor/author. Many red flags in work itself, the most noted being a whole chapter devoted to accusing a long string of mainstream tenured academics at major institutions of being "stalinists" - which may be part of the reason no one was willing to publish this.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell if this is really self-published. The publishing organization was established by someone else and apparently published a number of books. This is probably not the best source, but hardly anything "fringe". Yes, the book has been criticized. Yes, authors of the book criticized others too. That happens all the time. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The name was first used by Ulam or his family to publish his last book (reflections / memoirs) on his deathbed. Shortly after that it passed on to Chodakiewicz, who states he is the publisher. It is not apparent there was any "organization" (beyond Chodakiewicz and an e-mail to a printing press) at the time of publication. In total there are some 5 books published under this name. This is the definition of self-published - there is no publishing house here that editted and vetted. As for criticism - being designated by the SPLC is way beyond criticism. Calling every mainstream historian in the field a "stalinist" (whole chapter in the book on this) - is beyond criticism - it is the sort of drivel no publisher would be willing to publish.Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I saw it in your last link/ref: Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? accuses several prominent Polish-studies scholars of Stalinism. ‘The Neo-Stalinist Discourse in Polish Historical Studies in the United States’ by John Radzilowski, smears [list of several names]. Unfortunately, I have no idea if these words by the reviewer were not distortion (yes, such things can happen), and who knows, maybe John Radzilowski was right, and several historians in question are indeed "revisionist historians". I know, there are a lot of them in various countries. I do not really know this subject and can not be a judge in their disputes. You think you can? OK. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in the second review as well (which was published in a peer reviewed journal, unlike the boook). And in the book itself - it is not a distortion - it is there black on white. Heck, as of 2019, Chodakiewicz still describes the backlash against him as stalinist - [17] - including the SPLC designation. (the backlash resulted in most publications rejecting him, he's still at IWP - but that is not an institution known for research, to say the least).Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Chod. is a nationalist with fringe-y right-wing views. His approach to historiography is dated (Janowski, 2012), his views of Polish-Jewish history tainted with antisemitism (Michlic, 2007; Wrobel, 2017), and his casting of opposing historians as "Stalinists" borders on the insane. Just to give a taste to a Western reader, in one 2008 piece laced with dog-whistling and innuendo, Chod. raised the spectre of Barack Obama being a radical communist raised as a Muslim, with ties to the extreme fringes of Black Power. Chod. is not an RS on anything (though as a public figure he can be used with attribution), especially not as an SPS as is the case here. François Robere (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Chodakiwiecz is a reliable scholar and historian, if clearly with some strong views. He is reliable as a scholar, and a book press by a minor NGO/educational institution is hardly a red flag. Yes, publishing in a press that you are an editor of is a bit of a COI, but I doesn't count as self-published. This really should be discussed at WP:RSN not here, since there are no fringe theories discussed here... Anyway, the best solution is just to attribute his views. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Chodakiwiecz is a far right figure covered by the SPLC - his viewpoints on gays, minorities, Jews, white genocide, etc (see SPLC) are far out. The press does not belong to The Institute of World Politics (which has its own press, reliability of this mickey mouse (or spy vs. spy) institution (founded in 90s, around 150 students, very small staff - including figures such as Sebastian Gorka) uncertain - but it is not the publisher here) - but is separate and run by Chodakiwiecz - Leopolis is (per its webpage) 100% Chodakiwiecz. This book, which is filled with fringe views/conspiraxy theories on history and social sciences, received some highly negative coverage in actual academic sources due to claiming that "The study scrupulously states that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s. ... Furthermore, this Soviet-European-American implant seems to have been a danger to Polish social life since the 1990s. Finally, after a lengthy exposition, the author states that “neo-Stalinism may also be seen as a historiographic offensive bringing turmoil to Polish intellectual, cultural and social life in years following 1989” (p. 246). - should we place this amazing "fact" in articles on American social sciences? IWP is described as "There is something farcical about the conception of a crusade against the modern world professed by a few researchers from a marginal research centre,10 which is a recruitment pool of the CIA.11 from Krzywiec, Grzegorz. "Controversies: Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Wartime Fate of Poles and Jews." Holocaust Studies and Materials 3 (2013): 565-578..Icewhiz (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor scholar, but a scholar, who also held a post in USHMM and such, and wrote a speech for the US president. Anyway, since you chose to discuss this here rather than at RSN, what is so fringe about the claims in this book? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As a "scholar", he is mostly unable to publish anymore in English - resorting to self publishing. In his early career, prior to major controversy, he got a board post (a polical apointee, not academic) - which given developments - was covered by the SPLC (and others) at the end of his term - SPLC 2009. His speech writing in 2017 was covered as: DID A POLISH FAR RIGHT ACTIVIST HELP DONALD TRUMP WRITE HIS SPEECH IN WARSAW, 2017, Newsweek. Self published works by far right activists are not scholarship. As for the book - the few reviews covering it note that it presents a narrative counter to the vast majority of published sources on WWII history and some note antisemitic language/motifs in the book itself. The book itself notes it is a response to a "false" narrative in published scholarship. Finally a book devoting a whole chapter to describing the whole branch of social sciences in the United States as Stalinist since the 1960s - and directed against Poland since 1989 - is making a highly fringe claim. Want to place this "fact" in Social science?Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thunderbird (cryptozoology) somehow split from Thunderbird (mythology): Undue emphasis on fringe theories?

    Looking over this page (Thunderbird (cryptozoology), I'm having a hard time making sense of what's going on here. Usually, cryptozoologists graft on to something from the folklore record, and then make all sorts of claims about it, including either explicit or thinly-veiled Young Earth Creationist stuff. The subculture's intense hatred for academics is notorious and well-recorded (plenty of well-cited discussion about it over at cryptozoology, for example).

    Yet what seems to be happening at thunderbird (cryptozoology) is that some cryptozoologists, such as Loren Coleman, have decided that the Native Americans have it all wrong (Thunderbird (mythology)) and, in typical fashion, have decided that here we have a monster to be hunted. And somehow this has yielded a second Wikipedia entry just for the obscure fringe notions of the subculture.

    I'm thinking this entire page is simply undue emphasis (WP:UNDUE) on an obscure fringe theory. I'm also wondering if any of the supposed "sightings" in fact even mention the compound "thunderbird", or if this is something projected on to them by Coleman and crew.

    Any idea how to proceed with this? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think these two pages should be merged because the subject is essentially the same. The split is not entirely unreasonable because Folklore/Fairy tales and pseudoscience are different things. As about deleting the page, I would vote "merge". My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pseudoscience and subcultures over at Talk:Thylacine

    Discussion regarding whether we may describe a pseudoscience and subculture as, well, a pseudoscience and subculture in an article space over at Talk:Thylacine#Cryptozoology,_Pseudoscience_and_Subculture. If you're not watching this page already, it could definitely use more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    From Atlantis to the Sphinx

    This is another fringe book by Colin Wilson. I tagged it for notability but then User:FreeKnowledgeCreator removed the tag adding two reviews, both behind a paywall: "'Atlantis and the Sphinix received a mixed review from Norman Malwitz in Library Journal.[1] The book was also reviewed by John Michell in The Spectator.[2]

    Malwitz described Wilson's thesis as "unusual", but credited Wilson with presenting his theories in "a sober and readable manner." He considered Wilson's claim that the Sphinx shows signs of water damage and is much older than has been thought to be his most interesting and believable statement. He compared the book to John Anthony West's Serpent in the Sky (1979).[1]"

    Maybe that scrapes by(?) but Norman Malwitz is just a senior library in a New York City branch library."The article reports on the presentation of a multimedia-collection about Sikh culture by Jagir Singh Bains for Queens Library's Glen Oaks branch in New York City to Senior librarian Norman Malwitz"[18] who I can see from an Amazon search does a lot of book reviews. I don't see why we should include his comments on the content itself. John Michell is of course a fringe author.

    References

    1. ^ a b Malwitz, Norman (June 1997). "Book reviews: Social sciences". Library Journal. 122 (11): 84.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
    2. ^ Michell, John (July 1996). "What is behind the stone door?". The Spectator. 277 (8767): 32.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)

    Doug Weller talk 10:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Malwitz reviews anything and everything and that journal contains hundreds of reviews per issue, mostly by non-specialists. Malwitz (to the best of my knowledge) has not any expertise in the subject area which probably explains the inept review.
    The other one is over here.
    Overall, shall be merged to the parent article. Fringe nonsense by a semi-lunatic. ∯WBGconverse 11:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    John Michell (writer) is the right John Michell in this case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller questioned whether Malwitz's view of the book should be mentioned. Per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Is Library Review now considered not an acceptable source? So long as it is considered acceptable, there is no reason not to mention Malwitz's view. It does not help the encyclopedia to look for reasons to exclude views from articles one personally disagrees with. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Democrats supporting MS-13

    There is a relevant RfC[19] on the MS-13 page which among other things covers the false conspiracy that Democratic politicians support MS-13, a transnational crime gang. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    To save some folks a click: the RFC in question is on whether to include a statement in the lead that rebuts Republican rhetoric accusing Democrats of enabling gangs like MS-13 through their policy choices. Not about a Democrat-MS-13 collusion conspiracy theory. Snoogs seems to have clicked on the wrong noticeboard by mistake. 199.247.45.106 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Energy (esotericism)

    This edit stood for four days before I reverted it.

    Watchlist, maybe?

    jps (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a live one here

    User:JGabbard#Perspectives/Protesting abuses!

    I didn't know that http://www.truthwiki.org/ existed before I read the above. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I altered the section title, but do not see why it is raised here? cygnis insignis 15:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect to alert us to keep an eye on their activitiesSlatersteven (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or their own? cygnis insignis 15:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to have to request that those of you who are getting paid for your efforts as allopathic charlatanism and rabid members of the WikiMafia please disclose your COI in accordance with PAID. GMGtalk 16:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be watching Cygnis insignis.-Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't bother, it is mostly trivial facts about the species we are extirpating. 16:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    Note that Roxy the dog is insistent that disparaging remarks about other users, as section titles, is a privilege worth edit warring over. cygnis insignis 16:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then don't edit other peoples posts. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Openly admits to violate NPOV ("boost a marginal topic into more general acceptance"). --mfb (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "You are banned from all pages and edits related to complementary and alternative medicine, broadly construed for six months." --User talk:JGabbard#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
    OK, so who wants to go and remove the WP:POLEMIC from his user page? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jean-Pierre Petit

    (Cross-posted at WT:PHYS, but regulars here may be interested as well.) Please see Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit. There was an RfC started, but it should probably be removed as too vague. There are all sorts of back-and-forth claims of conflict of interest, socking, fringe science edorsement, etc. It's a pretty tangled mess, and I don't know this stuff well enough to really help, so I thought I'd post a notice here. It seems related to this bimetric gravity stuff that's been posted about a couple times here recently as well. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Freeman Dyson's views on climate change

    The Freeman Dyson article contains a lot of content where he delineates his views on climate change (which go against the scientific consensus).[20] The text seems largely self-sourced, which seems inappropriate for someone who is not an expert in the field of climate science. Someone should take a look at the page to make sure it's compliant with WP:FRINGE and that it's not uses as a soapbox for climate change disinformation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hydrogen water

    Could I get a few editors to watchlist Hydrogen water. An enthusiastic editor made a problem edit yesterday, and I expect more to come. Also, would this article be suitable for inclusion on template:Alternative medicine sidebar? - MrX 🖋 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Conspiracy theory definition, continued

    Following from the recent RfC at Conspiracy theory, I believe things have been resolved for most of the lead section. However, it seems that the definition is still a sticking point, so additional input would be appreciated. Currently, the issue is whether or not the definition should include the phrase "when other explanations are more probable." Sunrise (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Opinion: A pair of political scientists think they've identified a new kind of conspiracy thinking. They haven't.

      • What a weird thing to get upset about. It's something of an American Chopper Meme: "Conspiracy theories are different today!" "There's nothing new under the Sun!" jps (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Texas lawmaker calls vaccines "sorcery".

    https://www.chron.com/local/prognosis/article/Texas-state-rep-calls-vaccines-sorcery-13826725.php --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarke's third law springs to mind. clpo13(talk) 18:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Creationist as a source for Battle of Jericho and Book of Joshua

    See the discussion at Talk:Book of Joshua#Gerald Aardsma about a source which the editor discussed in the section above added to both articles. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=896368291"