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 Logos (talk | contribs) at 16:37, 18 November 2015 (→‎The Law of One (The Ra Material): some statistics). 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:

    Integral Thought

    There's a walled garden of articles linked to Integral_theory_(Ken_Wilber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) / {{Integral thought}}, the contents of which read like the Sokal paper. I cannot tell if this is normal psychobabble, or fringe nonsense. All I can tell is that it makes grandiose claims and includes weapons grade arm-waving. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We tried to clean house from these articles a few months back. Turns out there is a rather large group of transhumanists watching these articles. Integral Transformative Practice is particularly awful. jps (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, should Integral education be a redirect? jps (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's start with this:

    jps (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving on to this:

    jps (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Corbett Report

    Has anyone heard of this guy and his rather fringey podcast and blogs? I am thinking of AFDing it, but I thought maybe some of you might have ideas though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Have I heard of it? Yes. Is it notable? Doubtful. I don't think it's popped up on the radar of the WP:RS literature. Or, at least, I can't find any sources. jps (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Up for AFD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see I missed the AFD. Let me just say in this case the system has made wrong decision. Corbett works with Sibel Edmonds. I don't expect a response. GangofOne (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always ask for a WP:DRV or ask the deleting administrator to userfy a copy of the article if you think you can bring it up to a standard where it would pass the problems outlined at the AfD. jps (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    2011 Vancouver UFO sighting

    2011 Vancouver UFO sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Notable enough for a standalone article, or another example of WP:RECENTISM gone amuck? I am of the opinion that this particular incident is no more notable than a library of similar kinds of incidents. It received the same local news coverage and then died like so many before and after it. jps (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A self-confessed hoaxer rigged a kite with LED lights, as reported by United Press International. This is really the totality of the story. However our article seems to give equal validity to UFO-org spokespeople. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We shouldn't have articles on one-off hoaxes, IMHO: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Vancouver UFO sighting. jps (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Unzicker

    Alexander Unzicker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Wrote one cranky book published by a reputable publisher which was panned by Peter Woit. And that's it as far as notability is concerned. Should we have a WP:FRINGEBLP on the man?

    jps (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, let's try this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Unzicker. jps (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Flower of life (again)

    We deleted is 6 months ago because it failed inclusion guidelines for fringe sources. Now it's back:

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (geometry).

    jps (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently the band Cold Play is using the shape for their upcoming album A Head Full of Dreams, and the rumor-based websites are using the term rather freely to describe the shape. I feel a clash of sourcing standards coming on. The pop music editors routinely take rumor-based websites as reliable sources for what things are. Ugh. jps (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Phytotherapy

    Given that "phytotherapy" seems to be another way of saying "herbal medicine"[1] I'm wondering why we have separate articles. The Phytotherapy article is not great, with some dodgy sourcing. Does anybody think the topics of "phytotherapy" and "Herbalism" should be considered distinct? Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems fine to me. [2]. Per WP:ASTONISH, I think herbalism is the right target. jps (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Revisiting this after over a year away from substantial edits to these articles, my reading is that 'Phytotherapy' is not directly equivalent to herbalism, though there is some overlap. Phytotherapy is herbalism which seeks to work within the bounds of modern research and testing. Whether it does this successfully is a question for the article to cover, but herbalism in general covers a bunch of practices that have no interest in research support for their claims.Dialectric (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got a source which supports that definition? My (admittedly far from exhaustive) searches suggested that phytotherapy and herbalism were synonymous in the medical literature. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Add) Aha! Ernst is good on this. This suggests to me our articles should be organized differently as Herbalism appears to be an umbrella term for both "traditional" herbalism and phytotherapy? Alexbrn (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Encyclopedia Britannica also makes this distinction, and I believe I can find other sources. These terms are used inconsistently across the web, which makes structuring these related articles a bit difficult. There is also the question of how pharmacognosy relates. Your point that herbalism can be an umbrella term covering "traditional" herbalism and phytotherapy sounds reasonable.Dialectric (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews of 9 fringe archaeology books in Antiquity Magazine

    This is great - I ran across What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods which mentions that section in Antiquity Magazine with 9 reviews of fringe books which are here. Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Great. Thank you! Delta13C (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rupert Sheldrake - "but he is a biologist" again

    Viewers of this board may be interested in the latest attempt to shoehorn "biologist" into the lead as the primary descriptor of the purveyor of "telepathic dogs" . feel free to join the conversation at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Publishing houses of similar names?

    Does anyone have a good way to check if the Women's Printing Society which was publishing feminist and suffragette materials before and during the turn of the century is the same Women's Printing Society (ltd) which is responsible for publishing theosophical and fringe materials in early and mid century? (see the sources referenced in Temple of the Stars, Glastonbury#Glastonbury_zodiac, Constance Wachtmeister for example) this [3] suggests the original shut down during WWI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gluten-free diet and autism.

    On the Gluten-free diet page we find the claim "Only a subset of patients may improve some autistic behaviours with a gluten-free diet." Looking at the references, (one is in spanish, two show only the abstract) this looks like a fringe theory based upon some very speculative language in the one source I could access ("6. Is Autism Part of the NCGS Spectrum?" in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820047/ ).

    Could someone with more familiarity with medical/dietary claims than I have please look into this? Thanks, --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nigma Talib

    I am concerned that the sources used in the article Nigma Talib are not reliable because they give undo prominence to fringe theories, like alternative medicine, naturopathy, adrenal fatigue, and functional medicine. Basically, many of the articles cited are from magazines and "features" in tabloid-style news papers, which seem to be promoting the article's subject and her private naturopathy practices. I found evidence that these articles may be the result of a PR campaign paid for by Nigma Talib. At least one of the authors of a cited source also writes for a online make-up store which appears to have a business relationship with the subject:

    There is also a glaring violation of WP:BOOKSTORE in sourcing Amazon.co.uk bestsellers on a narrow category in mentioning the subject's book in the article.

    I believe the current discussion on that pages's talk Talk:Nigma_Talib#Notability provides the most detailed information about my concerns. I hope more editors can chime in on this debate.

    Thank you! Delta13C (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigma Talib. jps (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Numerology

    The section on "Numerology in science" seem to take a different subject which tends to make the fringe material look less so. How to handle it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It is something of a misnomer, but it's undeniable that the word "numerology" is used in such contexts, and entirely as a criticism. It may be worth emphasizing this. A similar thing is when scientists use the word "magical" or "miraculous". [4]. jps (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    2004 Mexican UFO incident

    2004 Mexican UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    What do you think? Should this be a stand-alone article?

    jps (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not pass WP:EVENT and its various subsections. Given that there is some coverage, merge and redirect to UFO sightings in Mexico. - Location (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Law of One (The Ra Material)

    Anyone know if this nonsense is covered in good sources anywhere? My searches are drawing a blank ... wonder if another (!) trip to AfD may be in order? Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The last AfD closed more than a year ago due to the grumpiness of the administrators rather than taking seriously the complaints of those who think this work is probably too obscure to deserve a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Any new AfD nomination would have to explain this situation clearly. jps (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No surprise that Alexbrn's searches drew blank, as he was also objecting the inclusion of a book's wikipedia link in Roswell UFO incident article. Salimfadley did the job: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_(The_Ra_Material) Logos (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the editors who commented on the 3rd mentioned that new sources had been found to attest to the notability of this subject. Does anybody know which sources he/she might have been referring to? From what I can tell all of the sources in this article are either fringe/occult sites of no particular importance or alternatively are primary sources (e.g. google books links) which can attest to the content of the book but not it's importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Some users tend to manipulate WP:Fringe guideline to overrule other primary policies like WP:Verify and WP:NBOOK primary policy WP:VERIFY and the guideline WP:NBOOK. This behaviour's one of reflections is even about the article Fringe theory. It's kind of an obsession; because even though "Fringe theory" concept has no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, there are plenty of its dedicated "protectors" in wikipedia. jps was quite honest about that in the past: [5] Logos (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably better to WP:FOC than start spouting off about "some users". And yes, WP:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (The Ra Material) is now open for business. Still wondering if this stuff has been discussed in any respectable sources to allow us to write something neutral ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing "some users" past key issues into the scene does not violate WP:FOC. It's like probing the judgemental abilities of an adminship candidate. If an editor is not able to evaluate the issues neutrally and demonstrating some real bias, then other editors may need to know it. Logos (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In general opening an argument by asserting, in essence, that one has the fine judgement that one's opponents lack, is fairly weak. Back to the point: do these supposed strong sources mentioned in prior AfD's actually exist? If so where are they? Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we in deletion discussion? Or in FT noticeboard? They are mentioned in previous deletion discussions and in talk page archives of the article. Logos (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We are in both places at once. I did look over the prior discussions and nothing stood out as being a really strong source. Indulge me: what's the very best one that was mentioned in your view? Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your problem, you're not systematic; you pour all wp policies & guidelines into the pot and come up only with the miracoulous WP:FRINGE. Let's get back to the basics then;
    1-Trivial coverage of a topic/book in independent, reliable, third-party sources warrants a stub in wikipedia.
    2-For a topic to be able to grow past a stub/summary, there should be some extended non-trivial coverage in at least 1 independent, reliable, third-party source.
    3-For neutrality, there should be some critical commentary about the topic in at least 1 independent, reliable, third-party source.
    So, the law of one article/books satisfies clause 1 definitely; there are plenty of sources mentioning the law of one books briefly (i.e. trivial coverage). It doesn't matter whether those are new-agey, spiritualist, or "woo-woo" sources; the only prerequisite is "independent, reliable, third-party". Clause 2 is also satisfied by Kinney's article about the law of one books in Gnosis magazine. Some editors may argue that it's not enough. Then there are below sources;
    Klimo, Jon (1987). Channeling: Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources. North Atlantic Books. p. 203. ISBN 9781556432484.
    Wicherink, Jan (2008). "The law of One" (PDF). Souls of Distortion Awakening: A convergence of science and spirituality. Piramidions. pp. 193–197. ISBN 978-90-813047-2-6.
    Hastings, Arthur. With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study of Channelingl. Holt Rinehart and Winston (March 1991). p. 60. ISBN 9780030471643.
    Andrew Ross (1991). Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits. Verso. pp. 39–. ISBN 978-0-86091-567-6. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
    Kinney's article contains some critics, therefore clause 3 is also satisfied. Finally, nearly all of the content in the law of one article are from mainly Kinney's article/commentary in Gnosis magazie. So, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH is also not violated. Logos (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do recall that it was the Kinney article upon which the hat was hung. I'm not convinced that User:Logos is not somehow conflicted when it comes to this subject. jps (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Funny indeed; what can I do to convince you that I am not related to llresearch or authors of the the law of one books? Logos (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay Kinney in Gnosis Magazine is our supposed RS!? Holy mackerel, he just happened to be the owner, editor, and publisher of that magazine and is author of that piece, so it's effectively a WP:SPS as well as lacking WP:FRINDependence. The opinion that WP is currently carrying includes his writing "the system is worth at least a few minutes' attention for its sophisticated version of the general doctrine of higher worlds" which sounds like promotional bilge. Alexbrn (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Gnosis was a magazine and you say that it is self published? Have you forgotten the tinfoil on your head? Logos (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No I said Kinney's piece (cited by you) was, since he owned and edited the the magazine. Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    break

    Wrong again; have I mentioned WP:FRINGE or WP:FRIND part of it in above clauses? No, WP:FRINGE or WP:FRIND are not governing guidelines/pieces with regards to this topic. It's like the difference between "roswell (ufo incident)" and "the day after roswell" articles. The law of one article is about the law of one books; we don't need some "fine works of scholarship"/"fine works of religious scholarship" to "examine the irrational nature" of the topic/books. Logos (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In point of fact, the article we have now is not really about books at all, it about the content of those books (which are available outside the books), the "general doctrine of higher worlds", aliens and the like. It's a WP:COATRACK on the books, which themselves are not notable either. Unless we can find some decent sources I think this will need deleting. Alexbrn (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So, how does an article about a book should look like? It should contain some summary of the content also. Logos (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you can explain how the subject passes WP:BK if that's the angle you're taking. That's actually a much more stringent notability guideline. Self-published books such as this one essentially never pass. jps (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-published?? You were one of the contributors to this article; you should have realised it's being the opposite before. The books were published by Schiffer Publishing. Logos (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but the waters were sufficiently muddied at previous AfDs by long screeds such as the above to prevent careful analysis by the closing administrator. The newbie mistake of immediately renominating was swatted down from on high. jps (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're under no obligation to convince me of anything. However, I have noticed how much of a champion you are of this particular article which is very, very strange. You also seem prone to ownership as seen in your attack (and violation of WP:OUTING) of an IP on the article page. jps (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you checked that IP user's edits? Those edits would eventually turn the article into a big-fat nonsense (just like in the past), and as a result, it would be deleted easily. That IP user didn't seem to have the minimum required knowledge of wp policies & guidelines. What would you do; adopt? Logos (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that the IP wasn't problematic. I'm saying that you seem to have a peculiar attachment to the article (just look at your userpage!) and you definitely violated WP:OUTING which is a pretty big sin here at Wikipedia. Don't worry, I won't be reporting you. jps (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a big sin in wp to have a peculiar attachment to the article; in the end I started editing wp just to create that law of one article. Sure it may seem to you as problematic, but don't worry I am not, or wouldn't be, offended. Maybe you should report me, so that official procedures may reveal the truth; that IP user also seems to have been editing only the law of one article. In fact, that user may have the real COI issue. Logos (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you want to be reported. From what I'm seeing the current arbcom will speedily hand down a site ban to any editor who has done anything that looks like WP:OUTING. Is the article covered by WP:ACDS? Alexbrn (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't take this as some kind of threat. Logos (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think technically the article would be under discretionary sanctions, but I don't think that's relevant to the WP:OUTING issues. If you're concerned about it, WP:AN or WP:ANI is probably the place where this would be properly dealt with. Maybe. But dramaboards often result in more heat than light. jps (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be concerned about the WP:SPA nature of your account, but in other venues you actually do some good contributions. I don't know why you are so attached to this particular book, but you have been one of the most successful dedicated users at keeping this material in Wikipedia that I have seen. For that alone you should probably be given some sort of award. jps (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SPA is just another essay, and you're exaggerating my dedication. When you look at the history of the law of one article, you will see that I was stalled after the deletion of the 1st article (ra (channeled entity)). Then some guys created the article with some other name, and my contribution was limited, I was only participating in deletion discussions. As you see, it's not only me who may be considered as peculiarly attached to these books. So, even if it is deleted, most probably somebody will recreate it: [6] [7] Logos (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    World Wireless System

    Need help at World Wireless System. This article is about Nikola Tesla's proposed wireless power scheme to transmit electric power long distances through the air, culminating in his unsuccessful Wardenclyffe Tower power transmitter.

    Recently there seems to be repeated efforts [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] to reinsert WP:FRINGE theories, noted in this previous Noticeboard complaint [13], which were previously cleared out of the article. Based on WP:OR WP:pseudoscience interpretations of Tesla's debunked 100 year old claims, they say Tesla actually achieved wireless power transmission.

    Would like outside editors, particularly those that have some experience with Tesla, to look at future edits. Please put it on your watchlists. Considering how much attention Tesla gets in the WP:FRINGE movement, it is important to get his articles right. --ChetvornoTALK 03:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=691249596"