Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Til Eulenspiegel (talk | contribs) at 14:26, 8 September 2010 (→‎Til Eulenspiegel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

    We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

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

    Shakespeare authorship question and WP:ONEWAY

    Although I suspect topic fatigue has set in for many editors, it would be much appreciated if some would weigh in on this discussion about whether inserting the Shakespeare authorship question into Shakespeare's plays is a violation of WP:ONEWAY. The discussion preceding the current one has more information. Same actors, same topic, same arguments, but it would be nice to get this settled so we don't have to go through this on every article. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ONEWAY is part of the WP:FRINGE guideline. I'm not sure I'd base any arguments on a guideline, since editors seem to disregard them with wild abandon. The question is really whether it's appropriate (and useful for readers) to spam nonsense about the authorship "controversy" on every Shakespeare-related article. The answer is "no." --Akhilleus (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is really whether it's appropriate (and useful for readers) to mention the existence of the long-standing authorship controversy, briefly and neutrally, in at least some Shakespeare-related articles, such as Shakespeare's plays. The answer is "yes." SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is really whether it's appropriate (and useful for readers) to mention the existence of the long-standing authorship controversy, briefly and neutrally, in at least some Shakespeare-related articles, such as Shakespeare's plays. The answer is "no." Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My mileage varied. There may be a legitimate question to be asked as to how the fringe theories are to be linked to, but no more than that. The answer is, I think, "very carefully", so as not to suggest that they are anything other than lunatic fringery. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Kecksburg UFO incident

    I just removed a fair bit of material from the "scientific articles" section of this article that was purportedly being supported by a self published website. Could I have some extra eyes take a look at this article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The opening paragraph of this article includes an account of a reported meteor fall occurring that day purportedly shedding "hot metal debris over Michigan and northern Ohio starting some grass fires and [causing] sonic booms in Western Pennsylvania". I can easily believe that there was a bright naturally occurring meteor observed over the areas that are being described that afternoon that precipitated a "sonic boom"; although I'm having a difficult time believing any grass fires were caused by "hot metal" being shed from it. What I'm having the most difficulty with, is asking the reader to correlate this meteor sighting with what's being contended happened on the ground near Kecksburg; it seems to me to be pure "original research" connecting the two together. What do other editors think about this? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's disturbing that an entertainment program hosted by Bryant Gumble on SyFy Channel is given credibility as a "scientific study" in this WP article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Actually, when I started looking at this article, I was struck by what appears to me, to be its obviously unbalanced and agenda driven perspective on the purported "event". It was in anticipation of a 'firestorm' response to me alone attempting to make the kind of large scale changes necessary to achieving some form of neutrality in this material that I posted here. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SyFy programming being positioned as "research" is a widespread problem. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Political Cesspool may be a target for meatpuppets

    James Edwards, the host of The Political Cesspool (an antisemitic white nationalist radio program), has just posted a blog entry [1] in which he accuses me of being a "Zionist" and encourages his own listeners to edit the article to insert their own POV. I think The Political Cesspool (which is a featured article) could use a few extra watchers to keep any such meatpuppetry in check. I've also posted this to the ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cryptozoology

    This article failed GA for being very pov. One of its main editors has been giving it a Creationist slant. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Creationist cryptozoology? the mind boggles... --Ludwigs2 02:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just read through the article, I can see why it failed GA status - clunky writing and bad structure. I don't see the bias that you are asserting. There are a few places, yes, where editors are trying to wheedle in some pro-CZ advocacy, but as a whole the article seems to be a fairly neutral description of the topic. I also don't see the creationist slant at all - where are you finding that?
    remember, this is an article about CZ; we don't need to be as strict with it as we would if this were an article about mainstream zoology. a bit of rewriting should remove what POV problems are currently there - I may undertake that in a day or so. --Ludwigs2 02:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bigfoot

    Also needs some attention. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Man, stop paying attention for a few months and the article becomes a pro-Bigfoot wankfest. I fixed most of the issues now. DreamGuy (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesus myth theory and fringe

    The Jesus Myth Theory is rejected by the vast majority of scholars, who treat it with disdain, as many sources, both secular and religious indicate:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ#FAQ_Question_.232

    And yet, the lead section only mentions it as being rejected by "most scholars", a clear mis-representation of the extent the theory is rejected.

    Any edits I make which adds the viewpoint that CMT is rejected by historians gets reverted and labelled as POV pushing.

    [2] [3] Flash 00:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Dawkins promoting it? I thought it went out around 1920 or so, once Biblical scholarship started becoming a reputable discipline of its own. I always read it as being a reaction to using the Bible as an arbitrator of history.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "rejected". More like "unproven and unlikely". But most scholars seem to think it's a possibility, even if not a very great one. — kwami (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    <sigh...> the problem on that article (which I made a short attempt to work through a while back) is that there is ambiguity about what the article covers and a number of agenda-driven editors involved. the actual Jesus Myth theory (e.g., that the story of Jesus is a completely fabricated mythology) was a short-lived scholarly theory which probably wasn't fringe in its heyday but might be considered so if there are modern adherents still advocating for it. The various corollary theories (e.g. that there was an actual historical figure in the correct time frame who was extensively embellished by Roman mythology, or that there was an earlier historical figure or figures who was/were picked up and blended into a sort of historical 'meme') certainly are not fringe, or rejected, or even outdated, but are variously interpreted by editors as or as not pertinent depending on whether they are trying to solidify the Jesus Myth theory for anti-religious purposes or refute it for pro-religious purposes. It leads to disheartening conversations. 'Most scholars' seems like a reasonable compromise in the absence of reasonable discussion: JMT narrowly conceived is broadly rejected, but JMT broadly conceived is not an uncommon scholarly viewpoint. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Ludwigs2's summary is quite accurate. For more background, see any of the previous appearances of this article on this board: see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Christ_myth_theory for a list.
    Anyway, there is a proposal at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Merger--Christ_Myth_Theory_and_Historicity_of_Jesus to merge Christ myth theory into a larger article called Existence of Jesus or somesuch—people may be interested in commenting. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you realize how many times this has been brought up at this noticeboard? By now, absolutely everyone with the slightest interest in the matter can just watch the article talkpage, no? This discussion is so WP:LAME by now it boggles the mind. Sorry for ranting. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    lol - dab, if that's what you consider a rant, you must be half-Vulcan. Or else you need some serious lessons in effective venting... but you're right (which is why I prefaced my own response with a deep sigh). some people seriously need the wikipedia redpill, because they are far too absorbed in the reality of their own nonsense. --Ludwigs2 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Help!

    People pushing positive promotion of the climate denialist blog Watts Up With That? are demanding that a positive review by Virginia Heffernan be included in the lead even though there is a verifiable regret she expressed about it. Please help at Talk:Watts Up With That?#Virginia Heffernan. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that ScienceApologist has been edit-warring to include unsourced contentious material about a living person. Since ScienceApologist won't tell us the source for his edit, I believe it is this,[4] a comment to a blog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the material in question: while she is not absolutely clear about a rejection of her original endorsement, it's clear that her present opinion doesn't match her first (and exceedingly brief) statement. I personally see no way to treat the material without creating a potentially false impression. Better just to drop the whole thing. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nubia

    It appears the Afrocentrists grew tired of Egypt for the time being and now concentrate on Nubia as the improved "homeland of black civilization" (better than Egypt!). In any case I just did some emergency cleanup of Nubia, Nubian people and related articles, but much, much more work is needed. See also Thesunshinesate (talk · contribs), Chancellor Williams. Ah, and here is another eyesore, in case somebody feels like wasting a Sunday on a boring race essay. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement analysis

    I'd appreciate it if others could watchlist this article and keep an eye on it. It's an obscure technique that tries to tell if someone is lying or not by examining specific words chosen and reading into them very specific meanings. DreamGuy (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    9/11 conspiracy theories

    Heads up about this entry at the COI noticeboard.[5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ludwig Wittgenstein questionable material

    At Ludwig Wittgenstein, there is one editor who is furiously edit-warring to re-introduce material that was earlier removed by consensus of editors.

    The material centers around speculation that because Adolf Hitler and Wittgenstein briefly attended the same school, they knew each other well and had a profound influence on each other lasting their entire adult lives. The thesis was put forward in a book by fringe author Kimberley Cornish, who has been associated with holocaust denier David Irving. According to critics, the book is garbage (negative reviews outnumber positive reviews by about 10-to-1; see Wikipedia article The Jew of Linz).

    Kimberley Cornish for a number of years tried very hard to accord his crackpot theory a prominent place in the Ludwig Wittgenstein article by making many edits, as an IP and as User:Kimberley Cornish. This included inserting a cropped 1901 classroom photograph, in which he labeled Adolf Hitler with his name and another, unknown, boy as "Ludwig Wittgenstein". Finally editors at Ludwig Wittgenstein got so fed up with Cornish and his antics that they basically kicked him out, setting up the The Jew of Linz article so that Cornish could promote his book to his heart's delight. Which he promptly did. It wasn't until much later that other editors stepped in and cleaned up that article as well.

    In the course of his self-promotion, Cornish repeated all number of unverified claims from his books, for example that a forensic examiner in Australia looked at the picture and identified Wittgenstein as "highly probable" in the picture. Regardless of whether or not an examiner did so (probably not, since Cornish is known for playing fast and loose with the truth and making things up out of whole cloth, as noted by many of his critics), we know this is impossible because the picture dates from 1901 and Wittgenstein did not attend that school until the 1903/1904 school year.

    SlimVirgin pretends to be on the safe side by captioning the picture as "there is no consensus" that Wittgenstein appears in the picture. It would be more accurate to say that "there is no evidence", but then the picture could not be in the article at all!

    The foremost biographer of Adolf Hitler's youth is Brigitte Hamann, and she is on record numerous times saying that Wittgenstein and Hitler, being two grades apart and moving in different circles, had "nothing at all to do with each other". Source Further, Hamann explicitly says that "the picture was not taken in 1903 and the child close to Hitler isn't Wittgenstein. The picture is older. It was taken at a time when Ludwig was a pupil in Vienna and not in Linz." Source

    By SV's logic, the Dinosaurs article must include a photograph of fossilized impressions that "show" a human footprint next to a dinosaur footprint. After all, it is sourced to Young Earth Creationist literature. To be safe, a disclaimer stating that "there is no consensus" can be included!

    Cornish's book is gradually subsiding into well-deserved obscurity. His publishers are not reprinting the book. Google search hits are relegating the supposed Hitler-Wittgenstein nexus to back pages as more and more time passes. Resurrecting the notions of a crackpot writer within the WP article on Wittgenstein would reverse that trend, a bad idea. It would also run counter to WP:WEIGHT, which says that tiny-minority views are not to be included in WP articles.--82.113.106.29 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This anon arrived at the article, reverted several times with insults, posted abuse on talk (e.g. [6]), and while he was doing this a new account was created that tried to out me, and called me a lying cunt in an edit summary on the same article (now oversighted). [7]
    The anon has confused several different issues, and has been told this already. Here is the material he's objecting to. It's reliably sourced and debated; see the Notes section. That's all I'm going to say about it, because I've had enough of trying to deal with this person. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Til Eulenspiegel

    Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) is on the prowl again, pushing his strange fundamentalist fantasies about ancient Ethiopia and the Bible. See user contributions. His recent contributions seem to be close to 100% reverts, plus the occasional rants about "hateful distortions" on talkpages.

    I know this is also a repetitive call for attention, but as long as we do not finally honour this one with a dedicated "Til Eulenspiegel" (or more conventionally, apply user sanctions), this is probably the best place to bring it up. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what Dab's problem is today, but he chose to wade into two articles overnight and turn them upside down into total POV pieces, and accuses me of being the disruptive one. Almost nobody in Ethiopia thinks the name of their country comes from Greek for "burnt face" as was first proposed by a European scholar in 1843. There are a number of alternative and referenced theories about where their name comes from that are more popular in Ethiopia. The question here is, do Ethiopian views about themselves count for anything, or must they accept what is being handed to them by European scholars. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd asked the people of Victorian Manchester how the name of their town originated, they'd almost all have said it came from the manly chests of early Saxon citizens who repulsed Viking invaders. That was the standard folk etymology of the name. But we don't say that's the etymology in the Manchester article. So, no, we don't care what non experts say, wherever they come from. Being from a place does not automatically give some special insight into ancient etymology, especially the etymology of a language wholly unrelated to your own. Only the consensus of experts matters. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And Ethiopians couldn't possibly be experts on their own history, nor are their views about themselves significant, or even worthy of mention. Because everyone knows experts come from Europe, and only they count. I see, il Duce. Don't bother getting me sanctioned, I will not be back on English wikipedia for quite some time, because what it is becoming these days speaks for itself. If you need me, I will be active on Amharic encyclopedia and on the Afrophone wikis mailing list. See ya. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully support dab's filing. The user is again on the warpath to promote his fringe POV with recourse to the usual doses of wikilawyering to game the system. Perhaps AN/I for a block solicitation would be salutary. Eusebeus (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=383649600"