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 174.118.142.187 (talk) at 13:14, 18 June 2013 (→‎Power factor). 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.

    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:

    International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers

    This group has come up again WRT sourcing for a claim made in thunderbird. The article makes it sound terribly important, but from what I gather the thirteen women in question have no real call to speak for anyone about anything. It's not at all clear how they personally were selected. I'm increasingly inclined to question whether they should have an article, but at any rate the article needs major deflation. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is clear that they were selected by mystical calling of some sort. It's unclear whether this "council" has met at all since its inception in 2004, or what it actually does other than make new-agey pronouncements. Paul B (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's been nominated for deletion. It seems "Jeneane Prevatt" invited various female elders to meet regularly, which they do, so my comment above is inaccurate. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Each Grandmother has her own page too it seems. Sourcing indicates there is no coverage from the mainstream, and so I'm fairly sure that these are not sufficiently notable to warrant an article each. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. Heiro 01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole process of checking the references and establishing that they're dubious was a waste of people's time. One look at the article reveals that it doesn't belong in a serious reference work.Stenen Bijl (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So. who's up for figuring out which of the grandmothers have Wikipedia pages and possibly going to AfD with them? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I found eleven ten eleven (Clara Shinobu Iura and Maria Alice Campos Freire don't appear to have articles here):

    and also, relatedly:

    Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I blanked Flordemayo, since none of it is based upon reliable sources, and more generally is obviously ridiculous, but an "anti-vandal crusader" using automated tools restored all the material.Stenen Bijl (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You might try prodding the ones that don't seem notable, and taking any challenged ones to AfD. Or requesting speedy deletes for those that are completely unsourced and promotional. I'm adding the lot to my watchlist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why bother? According to MelbourneStar, I "may lose [my] editing privileges (emphasis mine.)" Why do I not feel that it's a "privilege" to be allowed to help clean up Wikipedia's mess? I think I'll pass.Stenen Bijl (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flordemayo Heiro 22:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice how they all say that the subject "gained international recognition as a member of the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers"? Although this isn't at all true? All these articles are spam. They should all be deleted as a batch. If I understand administrator permissions correctly, this will take all of about two minutes.Stenen Bijl (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julieta Casimiro Heiro 08:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/the remaining members of the council of grandmothers Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The "remaining members" AFD was extended for lack of consensus if anyone else wishes to comment. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    PRISM (surveillance program)

    This news story broke in the last 24hrs and a new article is growing at a rapid pace. Since certain aspects of this topic are a conspiracy-theorists' wet dream, fringe experts may want to keep an experienced eye on proceedings to ensure everything is being done properly. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    GM food controversies FAQ

    Editors are invited to comment on (and improve) a draft FAQ for the Genetically modified food controversies page (possibly to be transcluded to related pages as well). This is a topic area associated with a lot of fringe science; editors familiar with the FAQs on other such pages (e.g. evolution, global warming) are especially welcome. The talk page section for discussion is here. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Solutreans: The first Americans

    This is an article about a Discovery Channel - also called "Ice Age Columbus: Who Were the First Americans". I can't find anything discussing it so maybe it should go to AfD. But at the moment the problem that I have is that it states as fact stuff that is either flat out wrong or misleading. We have a decent article on the Solutrean hypothesis so perhaps the best solution is to turn this into a redirect with a paragraph about it in the main article? The main article, for instance, makes it clear that DNA studies show that what I'm guessing is the DNA mentioned in the documentary didn't come via the Atlantic, but the article we have on the documentary says baldly "DNA evidence found a pattern that traced its lineage back to Europe in about a quarter of all Native Americans." It also says "Also, in sites across Europe and North America, stone age man apparently buried caches of oversized, thin spearheads that were impractical for hunting in ritualistic manners" - this has no context and I have no idea what is being referred to or what "impractical for hunting in ritualistic manners" even means. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Um that would be, "Also, in sites across Europe and North America, stone age man buried in a ritualised manner caches of oversized, thin spearheads that were impractical for hunting". Not saying it is true (though I have vague recollections of an archaeology lecture where something of the sort was mentioned). The point being made is that similar high-status objects (of limited utility) were being buried in both locations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the sentence is intended to says that they buried "in ritualistic manners" spearheads that were impractical for hunting. There should be a comma after 'hunting' at minimum, but really the sentence should be rewritten. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Humm, edit conflict: Like Andy says. Paul B (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see this docudrama on You Tube [1]. Those Solutreans have cool face paint and seem to be speaking in Klingon. Paul B (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see a one sentence mention of the show in the main article, but nothing beyond that. Interesting how many white supremacists groups show up high in the search results, though. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No significant coverage of the show - the only reference is to IMDB, meaning it is all WP:OR. It needs to be redirected to Solutrean hypothesis, with one sentence added saying that the Discovery Channel broadcast a show in 2005, {give title}, promoting the hypothesis, or something of the sort. Agricolae (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the merge. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Theistic Evolution

    Not exactly fringe per se, but related to the topic of creationism/evolution that input from regulars here would be helpful. The article on Theistic evolution seems to contain an awful lot of OR and synth based on primary sources. I've removed the worst of the material, lists of adherents and proponents that were either completely unsourced or synth. There is a discussion going on on the talk page. Would appreciate it if more editors would examine the article and weigh in. There is a valid topic here, but the article seems to have become a coatrack article on a vague concept. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the article in large part is an extended piece of OR/SYN in which the editor(s) are riffing on the concept of "Theistic Evolution" (itself worthy of an article), and exploring how it might apply in various ways to various religions and positions. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Power factor

    Over at Talk:Power factor we have two editors who have been pushing the fringe claim that there is no such thing as a negative power factor despite there being exactly zero sources for that claim. Any additional eyes on the page would be most appreciated. Those who help will be given special privileges when I become Dalek Supreme... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely! Followers may also want to watch for multiple references that do not support arguments they were supplied for (bogus), and excessive usage of disruptive side arguments, poetry, personal attacks and IP sockpuppetry accounts. Please also note the article is currently locked in the editwarring position without valid support and not the original text. Please do help out if you have technical knowledge. Please help out with disruptive behavior there if you have WP knowledge. Thanks for forum shopping. :) 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see from the above, those who hold the fringe position that negative power factor does not exist are great at typing words into the edit browser. Providing an actual citation that supports the claim? Not so much. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My general take from experience is that any sentence that requires twelve references is probably wrong. Looking at those references, they all appear to be things like patents and primary sources -- not RS-level. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The twelve references were added by a user who was frustrated by Wtshymanski's repeated attempts to remove any reference to power factor being negative from the article. As Guy notes, neither Wtshymanski nor his (currently) suspected sock puppets (as there are now two of them) have provided any evidence to support their view. I grant that the twelve references that are currently present are not very good references, but not very good references are better than no references at all. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The twelve references were brought in by new account User:JohnJuliusFeinstein that has only completed 7 edits all editwarring with the accepted, de facto, existing article text. Now McEachern has used them in his draft article and will soon discard most of them as an embarrassment to engineering science. One even uses negative power factor to describe the phase angle between currents. Duh! As Wtshymanski stated on the discussion, when McEachern gets his draft finalised, reviewed and published it may be the king source for WP reference. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The assertion that McEachern got his references from a Wikipedia comment that came after he put his draft on the web is a bald-faced lie. The claim that "[he] will soon discard most of [the sources] as an embarrassment to engineering science" is just one more attempt to distract the reader from the fact that there are no sources that support the fringe theory that negative power factor does not exist. Classic WP:IDHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would trust the expert input of Alex McEachern more than others. The article should say that PF can be negative. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this kerfuffle has been going on for over four years between AMcEachern and Wtshymanski. The first AMcEachern shot was this correction to the article in December 2008. Following that was a discussion with Wtshymanski across both user's talk pages, which did not prevent a quick little edit war between AMcEachern and Wtshymanski. AMcEachern tried again in October 2012 to bring some sense to the article talk page, but was resisted by Wtshymanski. April 2013 again saw some sense brought to the article talk page by Alex McEachern, but nothing came of it. I think it's high time that acknowledged industry experts such as AMcEachern are given a chance to correct the longstanding falsehood about there being no such thing as negative power factor. Binksternet (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you are not implying that AMcEachern is editwarring with this. Wtshymanski is using the accepted policies of WP and others should too. I could be God and what I say doesn't get in the articles. I haven't seen Wyshymanski go forum shopping, constantly ridicule editors opinions, or launch SPI attacks to rally support for his content disputes either. Some should be ashamed of themselves here. As stated, if you cared to actually read the talk page, when McEachern actually gets his peer reviewed article launched in the IEEE archives it will be a resource for Wikipedia. Currently the draft has embarrassing errors and is not a valid resource for WP. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't even need an acknowledged industry expert. Any ordinary Wikipedia editor can see that this is a case of two editors with zero sources for their WP:FRINGE theory wanting to talk about pretty much anything but the lack of sources and why we should treat the theory as fringe (hint: it's the lack of sources). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian_scholarship#Implications_of_Academic_Faithfulness_and_Christian_Scholarship

    Can people review this article from this section on? The references are very sparse, and the tone feels a bit promotional, but I'm not sure if I'm just seeing things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am uneasy about this type of article. It seems an ill-defined and rather nebulous concept is invoked ("Christian scholarship") and the article then becomes a dumping groud for anything editors consider is in-scope (e.g. people who are in some senses scholarly and Christian). It is a kind of coat rack, and similar to the case of Theistic evolution above. My inclination would be to insist on a firm definition of the concept, and then excise any mention of people that isn't backed by good sources that themselves state the concept applies to them. My hunch is this would lead to a significant reduction in article size. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ego (spirituality)

    This article is, uh, interesting. I removed a section that looks to me like pure OR -- the first sentence is, "Ego is the characteristic of the age, at least as far as the West is concerned," and it goes on from there. The removal was reverted by Drg55 (talk · contribs), with an edit summary saying, "The opition that there is a balance between ego and god is supported by references. 40,000 people found this interesting. Wikipedia ignore all rules." It would be useful to have more input here. Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct, Looie496. Religious articles require following available sources very closely because of their contentious nature. Andrew327 13:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pure original research (and the extrapolation is from poor sources to boot), IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary its very logical. The thing about ignore all rules is making an article which is educational not partisan, and that's the final arbiter. We have three positions, ego, religious, and something new here but its not, a balance. Anyhow I'll be rewriting it sometime in the near future.Drg55 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore all the rules was never intended to give carte blanche to anyone who wants to express their personal philosophy in the voice of Wikipedia (or to summarize the personal philosophies of random people with web pages). As I look at what remains, I am not sure the entire article shouldn't be deleted - just quoting what a bunch of so-called 'spiritual' people have to say about ego is just as much original research, and in no way defines a spiritual concept of ego. This is particularly the case when almost half of the remaining references are to a self-styled occultist, who can be assumed to have a unique viewpoint on spirituality to begin with. I vaguely think an article might be possible on the subject, but this isn't it. Agricolae (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=560446160"