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 Mbark22 (talk | contribs) at 01:38, 2 April 2019 (→‎cryonics: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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.

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

    Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the 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:

    Article alerts


    Articles for deletion

    • 18 Sep 2024 – Steuart Campbell (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Namiba (t · c) was closed as keep by Liz (t · c) on 25 Sep 2024; see discussion (5 participants)
    • 14 Sep 2024 – Rumpology (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Piotrus (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 23 Sep 2024; see discussion (1 participant; relisted)

    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split


    Effects of blue light technology

    light bulbs are going to kill you, don't you know? makes you blind, makes you craaaazeeee health claim I wrote a bunch of stuff on the effects of blue light technology page before I made an account as mitigation toward all the scare marketing but I'm still a bit concerned about the other ones and cant really see much of a justification for a lot of the health claims on those pages. As background, I just did simple math with references to point out that researchers have been basically frying rats eyeballs out of their heads with welding mask tier near-UV bright lights and comparing it to green light as some sort of proof that you need magic glasses to stop your eyeballs from falling out because they used the wrong equipment to check the light levels.

    The basic problem is that people doing the research are in ergonomics departments which use colorimeters because until recently they were studying office space light levels and i guess nobody told them how they work. Verify references (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh my god. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have to admit I've always been concerned with the severe idiocy that can accompany discussions of the effects that visible light has on human health. jps (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Weeding the garden

    I think we should start to pare down this mess of articles. To that end, I proposed a merge of Effects of blue light technology and ‎High-energy visible light. They are both about essentially the same subject (and the latter article title should conceivably just be redirected to blue or violet, fercryingoutloud.

    As I removed a bit of EMF paranoia from one of the articles, I discovered that we have TWO articles on essentially the same topic: Mobile phone radiation and health and Wireless electronic devices and health. So I propose we merge those too.

    Help is appreciated from all you wonderful people.

    jps (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • merge would agree with merge-Mobile phone radiation and health and Wireless electronic devices and health.-Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge that merge makes sense irrespective of the fringe-ness of the topic: they are both about global population exposures to fractional-watt radio transmissions in the overlapping bands used for cellular, DECT, and WiFi devices. Whether the hazard is large, small or merely speculative, there is a great deal of sloppy science being published on the topic, mixed in with a few careful works. The press-driven furor is as usual nearly devoid of useful information. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerard Gertoux

    This is about [1]. My claim is that Gertoux is WP:FRINGE: he seeks legal remedy against "the great French academic conspiracy against Christian fundamentalism" (although many Catholics, Eastern-Orthodox and Protestants would not recognize him as a Christian). On the internet there are details about his PhD candidature and how he accused his own professors of discrimination. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen some citations made to his works to contradict other scholars in the past and my impression is similar. —PaleoNeonate – 08:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm I will ping two editors who are not regulars here, but may have more valuable advice in relation to this topic than me: Jeffro77 and PiCo, in case they would like to comment. —PaleoNeonate – 08:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have occasionally seen 'Gerard Gertoux' inserted as a source on articles relating to the topic of 'God'. The sources involved are generally self-published and do not reflect scholarly consensus. Agree with an assessment as 'fringe'. Whether he is 'recognised as Christian' is quite irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard of Gerard Gertoux. I gather from a quick google-search that he's a graduate student at Université Lyon, which is not a very high academic ranking. (I mean being a grad student isn't - nothing against U.Lyon). Still, it's not the individual who's supposed to be reliable or fringe, it's the idea expressed - on academic subjects we should look for widely held positions common to people at the top of their profession, in this case biblical studies. Gertoux is not at the top of his profession, and I'd prefer to look elsewhere for the same ideas.PiCo (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (From the abstract of another paper by Gertoux: "Chronology is the backbone of history" is usually taught in schools but what is very disturbing is the total absence of reliable chronology to fix the Exodus because the date goes from 2100 to 650 BC (Sparks: 2015, 60); such a 1500-year gap is not at all serious. Furthermore, Exodus pharaoh identifications and theories (page 61) are absurd because the pharaoh of the Exodus died suddenly in the Red Sea according to the biblical text (Ps 136:15) and it is easy to see that the state of the mummy of Seqenenre Taa (Cairo Museum, The Royal Mummies CG 61051) proves that his body received severe injuries and remained abandoned for several days before being mummified. In addition Crown Prince Ahmose Sapaïr (Musée du Louvre, Paris: statue E 15682), who was the eldest son of Seqenenre Taa (1543-1533), died shortly before his father (Ex 12:29), who himself died on May 10, 1533 BCE. According to the biblical chronology based on absolute dates, not to the scholarly chronology of Edwin R. Thiele, the pharaoh of the Exodus died on May 10, 1533 BCE (exactly the same day). Consequently Seqenenre Taa was the pharaoh of the Exodus, according to absolute chronology." Not confidence-inspiring.)PiCo (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (And....: To be or not to be is a crucial question regarding Moses as well as the Exodus because, according to the Bible, the character related to that famous event forms the basis of the Passover which meant the Promised Land for Jews and later the Paradise for Christians. However, according to most Egyptologists, there is absolutely no evidence of Moses and the Exodus in Egyptian documents, which leads them to conclude that the whole biblical story is a myth written for gullible people. Ironically, if one considers that “truth” must be based on two pillars: an accurate chronology anchored on absolute dates (Herodotus’ principle) and reliable documents coming from critical editions (Thucydides’ principle), that implies an amazing conclusion: those who believe Egyptologists are actually the real gullible ones. According to Egyptian accounts the last king of the XVth dynasty, named Apopi, “very pretty” in Hebrew that is Moses’ birth name (Ex 2:2), reigned 40 years in Egypt from 1613 to 1573 BCE, then 40 years later he met Seqenenre Taa the last pharaoh of the XVIIth dynasty and gave him an unspecified disturbing message. The eldest son of Seqenenre Taa, Ahmose Sapaïr, who was crown prince died in a dramatic and unexplained way shortly before his father. Seqenenre Taa died in May 1533 BCE, after 11 years of reign, in dramatic and unclear circumstances. The state of his mummy proves, however, that his body received severe injuries, in agreement with Psalms 136:15, and remained abandoned for several days before being mummified. Prince Kamose, Seqenenre Taa's brother, assured interim of authority for 3 years and threatened attack the former pharaoh Apopi, new prince of Retenu (Palestine) who took the name Moses, according to Manetho (280 BCE), an Egyptian priest and historian. In the stele of the Tempest, Kamose also blames Apopi for all the disasters that come to fall upon Egypt, which caused many deaths.
    From the first page of that article we have this: The present chronology of the Bible is an elaborate system of life-spans, ÒgenerationsÓ, and other means which delineate the events over the 4,000 years of narrative time between the Creation of the world and the re-dedication of the Temple in 164 BCE. And this footnote on the same page: The early Church Father Eusebius, attempting to place Christ in the chronology, put his birth in AM 5199, and this became the accepted date for the Western Church. As the year AM 6000 (800 CE) approached there was increasing fear that the end of the world was nigh, until the Venerable Bede then made his own calculations and found that Christ's birth took place in AM 3592. Martin Luther placed the Apostolic Council of Acts 15 in the year AM 4000, believing this marked the moment when the Mosaic Law was abolished and the new age of grace began. This was widely accepted among European Protestants, but in the English-speaking world, Archbishop James Ussher switched the focus back to the birth of Christ (c. 1650), which he found had occurred in AM 4000, equivalent, he believed, to 4 BCE, and thus arrived at 4004 BCE as the date of Creation. Al of that is taken from OUR wikipedia article on Biblical chronology - I should know, I wrote it. Much as it hurts to say this about my own material, this is not reliable. PiCo (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "what is very disturbing is the total absence of reliable chronology to fix the Exodus because the date goes from 2100 to 650 BC" How do you fix the dates of a fictional event that never happened? There is no more evidence about the historicity of Moses, than the historicity of Little Red Riding Hood. And frankly, her tale is more realistic. No miracles or divine interventions.
    • "Seqenenre Taa" is Seqenenre Tao. The injuries on his corpse indicate death in battle, or assassination.:
      • "it is not known whether he fell upon the field of battle or was the victim of some plot; the appearance of his mummy proves that he died a violent death when about forty years of age. Two or three men, whether assassins or soldiers, must have surrounded and despatched him before help was available. A blow from an axe must have severed part of his left cheek, exposed the teeth, fractured the jaw, and sent him senseless to the ground; another blow must have seriously injured the skull, and a dagger or javelin has cut open the forehead on the right side, a little above the eye. His body must have remained lying where it fell for some time: when found, decomposition had set in, and the embalming had to be hastily performed as best it might."
      • "The wound on his forehead was probably caused by a Hyksos axe and his neck wound was probably caused by a dagger while he was prone. There are no wounds on his arms or hands, which suggests he was not able to defend himself."
      • "Until 2009 the main hypotheses have been that he died either in a battle against the Hyksos or was killed while sleeping. A reconstruction of his death by Egyptologist Garry Shaw and archaeologist and weapons expert Robert Mason suggested a third, which they saw as the likeliest, that Seqenenre was executed by the Hyksos king. Garry Shaw also analysed the arguments for the competing hypotheses and other physical, textual and statistical evidence concluding "that the most likely cause of Seqenenre’s death is ceremonial execution at the hands of an enemy commander, following a Theban defeat on the battlefield." "Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "There is no more evidence about the historicity of Moses, than the historicity of Little Red Riding Hood" - See also The Truth About Hansel and Gretel. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    About [2] mentioned before and [3]. The deleted arguments are in secondary sources: Robert J. Wilkinson (2015). Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Brill. p. 93, 94. ISBN 9789004288171., Pavlos D. Vasileiadis (2014). "Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek". Open Theology. 1: 56–88. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help), Didier Mickaël Fontaine (2007). Le nom divin dans le nouveau testament (in French). Editions L'Harmattan. ISBN 2296176097. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help), and Didier Fontaine (2009). S. Pizzorni (ed.). Il nome di Dio nel Nuovo Testamento. Perché è scomparso dai testi greci nel I e II secolo? (in Italian). Translated by S. Appiganesi. Azzurra 7. ISBN 8888907106. (primary source is not a self-publishing source Gertoux, Gerard (2002). The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH which is pronounced as it is written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its story. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. ISBN 0761822046. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) and its French version, Gérard Gertoux (1999). Un historique du nom divin: un nom encens. L'Harmattan. ISBN 9782738480613.). Thanks in advance. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If the arguments appear in valid secondary sources, cite those sources, giving due weight based on how those views are considered by experts in the field. A PhD candidate would not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I demonstrated above, Gertoux has plagiarised Wikipedia for his articles. He is not a reliable source.PiCo (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely thank you very much for taking the time to answer. I am not dealing with the subject of Exodus, Pharaoh or Moses, but the arguments that I mentioned before and why should not be included, if they are supported by secondary and even tertiary sources of experts in the field?. Gertoux does not have a high degree, but the authors of those secondary and tertiary sources, so that I consider that it would not be the problem anymore. I agree with Jeffro77, I will analyze how the information is presented, in places where it is not a direct textual quote. Sorry for the insistence. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why would we just not cite to those sources? Yes it would still be a problem, we use high quality sources when available (in fact we are encouraged to use the best available), so why would we use him?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    About secondary and tertiary sources, I would be grateful if you would allow me to ask why they are not high quality sources, if they come from the authors mentioned above in conjunction with the publishing house.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming in late, sorry. I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (2nd nomination) and a discussion with User:Khruner on my talk page last October. As I pointed out then, he still doesn't seem to have his PhD.[4] Doug Weller talk 15:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lupus in fabula. [5] Khruner (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, someone who refutes me directly, without deviating from the subject. The point is that if a reliable source it reads about someone's argument, regardless of who it is, why it should not be included?. The authors and its Publishers were wrong to include a sentence? I do not question the fact that Gertoux does not have a high degree, but it's not what I question. If it is considered that I am wrong, or maybe there is something that I do not take into account, I will change my view . Also let me apologize for coming in late. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Moore (environmentalist)

    Patrick Moore, currently described with the disambiguation "environmentalist" on Wikipedia, is best known for being for anything the environmental movement is generally against, all the while backing industry-friendly talking points, many of them quite fringe (comically, such as claiming one could drink a quart of glysophate without harm, only to refuse to do so). His apparently false claims about his former Greenpeace involvement (see the organization's statement on him) provide him cover to claim to be yet so concerned about the environment, especially when sources like Wikipedia claim he's an "environmentalist".

    Predictably, this is red meat for his intended audience: the petroleum industry, and America's right wing, "environmentalist" figures in the orbit of the Trump Administration (resulting in Fox News articles like "Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit'" and Breitbart articles like "Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’" (link blacklisted)). This is deeply fringe stuff.

    Moore himself appears to have been involved with the article under a few different names (for example, [6], [7], and [8]). This article needs far more eyes, particularly this talk page section on what to change the article's name to. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Arguably, refusing to drink an unspecified liquid of unspecified concentration is a completely reasonable thing to do. You very likely could drink a quart of glyphosate at an "as-sprayed" concentration without ill effects. --tronvillain (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to have an article on eating/drinking DDT. See Mickey Slim and [9][10][11][12]. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saying, you could drink a quart of piss without harm too, doesn't mean you'd happily do it when prompted. 38.68.203.42 (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Moore is now asking his Twitter followers to edit his Wikipedia page. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Roxy's Ruler

    Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxy's Ruler. Describes an astronomical distance measurement that implicates a non-standard cosmology. --mikeu talk 22:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fantastic article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SU(6) (physics)

    A user and his corresponding IP has entered a good deal of original research and pseudoscientific nonsense about consciousness into an article on quantum physics.[13] Can someone with knowledge of quantum physics help to separate the wheat from the chaff? Or maybe a wholesale revert is preferable. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Particle physicist here: Full revert was the right action. --mfb (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Yonaguni Monument#RfC on a statement that a distance between points A and B is N km

    Note that the context is scattered among other threads. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Moberly–Jourdain incident

    Moberly–Jourdain incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Article about a book called The Adventure published in 1911 by two women who claimed to have traveled back in time and seen the ghosts of Marie Antoinette and others. Under the header of Some explanations, our article presents "what is now called a time slip" on par with natural explanations. I believe the distinction between fringe claims (time travel, ghosts, etc) and mainstream understandings (natural explanations) should not be vague, ambiguous, or completely absent. Sadly, my efforts to correct this and add non-fringe clarifications have been rejected [14]. Also why is this identified as an "Incident"? Shouldn't our article title be The Adventure, since the book is what WP:RS identify as notable? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    See talk page of article. Having researched and written much of the debunking section [15] myself including discovering the Montesquiou explanation, I think the section is balanced. The only fringe explanation is that of Moberly and Jourdain's book, as clearly stated. All the others are rationalist explanations. This article has long been a battleground between fringe cranks (who know that they are right) and anti-fringe cranks (who know that they are right). A plague on both their houses. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    It sounds like you've been struggling to keep the article "balanced" between time travel/ghosts and no time travel/ghosts so both concepts appear roughly equally credible and the article doesn't make any radical conclusions 'for or against' reality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is that most of the claims (either paranormal or not) appear to all be a bit fringy (or at the very least widely assumptive, not being based on any thing more then assumption).Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. The only paranormal claims are those made in the book by Moberly and Jordain. Historian Roy Strong has noted that although the Moberly-Jourdain story has been debunked it "retained its hold on the public imagination for half a century."[1] Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    Yes, when it comes to fringe claims like time travel and ghosts, we report what independent third party sources have said about those claims. No problem with that. The problem is WP:GEVAL, which I assume you've read up on. You've reverted attempts to change the WP:WEASEL-ish header from "Some explanations" to "Natural explanations" or modify the awkward text which cites ghosts and time travel as one of the plausible explanations. How do you suggest we proceed? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The section "some explanation" reads to me like a "time slip" would be the default explanation, and then in addition to that there is an alternative presented. That is clearly not the impression the section should give. And the last part about being lost is important, too. I strongly prefer the version from LuckyLouie. --mfb (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Time slip was indeed the explanation implied by the two women, as I am sure you found from reading the book, but their explanation was not supported by any independent authority, not even the Society for Psychical Research. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    You made it worse. It still sets up time slip as the default explanation and presents non-supernatural as alternative views. Again, I'll ask, have you read WP:FRINGE? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a go at it. The article was, surprisingly, in somewhat better shape than I had remembered when I asked for a GA-reassessment (and despite an acrimonious discussion resulted in no consensus and not even a single !vote for keeping or delisting). I fixed some obvious WP:ASSERT problems and tried to neutralize the more audacious claims and prose. jps (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not at all convinced that we should link time slip to this article per WP:ONEWAY (the time slip article could certainly link back to this one, IMHO). Dunning of Skeptoid makes reference to this proposal in the title of his critique even, but I think that the use of the term time slip is highly anachronistic. Of course, neither of the claimants ever used that term as they were quite dead by the time it was coined. jps (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Much improved as the result of recent edits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Strong, Roy. (1991). A Celebration of Gardens. Timber Press. p. 362

    Modern Monetary Theory

    The article Modern Monetary Theory fails to clarify to readers that it is a marginal idea within economics and the article fails to cite "reliable sources... that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner", as WP:FRINGE instructs us to do. Most of the article reads like a personal essay, and the article cites a lot of working papers by heterodox economists. The lede to the article is a word salad that fails to clearly explain what MMT is. Furthermore, there also appears to be gatekeeping going on in the article, as one editor removed the IGM Economic Experts Panel survey of leading economists, which showed unanimous rejection of MMT by leading economists.[16] This is a problematic article which is not compliant with WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a note at User talk:Lawrencekhoo -- he being an actual economist and all -- so maybe he can weigh in. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There can be more discussion of the mainstream viewpoint. The lead definitely needs some discussion of how most economists reject the assertions made by MMT. However, I think the body of the article is OK as of today, since it makes clear that this is a heterodox theory with very little support outside the circle of adherents. Will edit the article a bit, hopefully uncontentiously. LK (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a problem with the criticism section of the article that you reference, listing the mainstream response to a claim of "deficits don't matter". That claim is not a part of MMT, and prominent/founding MMT academics like Randall Wray explicitly refute it ( http://rooseveltinstitute.org/deficits-do-matter-not-way-you-think/ ). Any representation of mainstream views regarding MMT, should be relevant to what MMT actually states - not what other people incorrectly claim it states - otherwise it will just be subject to consistent straw-man misrepresentations. Arfed (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no. Any representation of mainstream views regarding anything should be, well, representation of mainstream views. It's pretty straightforward. --Calton | Talk 07:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For the same reason that WP:Fringe requires proper attribution of an ideas acceptance for the mainstream view, it has to be shown that the idea is accepted among the non-mainstream view in order to even attribute it to them in the first place. In this case, we are talking about specific ideas/claims that have already been rejected by the non-mainstream view - and I've updated the article to show this. It would be absurd to have a criticism section in the article stating mainstream rejection of a particular claim - without also noting that the non-mainstream/MMT view also rejects that claim, after all. Arfed (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    BEMER Therapy

    BEMER Therapy, a new article, says it "is an alternative medical treatment method." May need looking at. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Does it heal cancer, without even discussing the type? Let's check. Oh yes, of course it does. Could be speedy deleted via G11, unambiguous advertisement? --mfb (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much RS. But from this it's safe to say it's dodgy as hell. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Tartary

    User:Mountain157 has persistently attempted to edit Tartary to assert over the past few days that Tartary was a historical country, and has recently claimed in Talk:Tartary that the reason the country of Tartary is completely unmentioned in modern academia was because of a conspiracy to suppress its existence. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I cited a document from the CIA on page 12[[17]] which mentions this. I never made a statement of that type in the talk page[[18]] and I believe this constitutes WP:PERSONAL.Mountain157 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly stated "In other words, Tartar history was to be re-written --let us be frank, was to be falsified== in order to eliminate references to Great Russian aggressions and to hide the facts of the real course of Tatar-Russian relations", which is complete conjecture and extrapolation from the given article. I would also like to add for benefit of moderators that [the concept of Tartary being a real country has already established by various fringe theorists.] Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What you just quoted was by the DOCUMENT, not by me. As I said before this user is clearly abusing the word fringe repeatedly in order to force his POV which in his mind is that "Tartary did not exist" and that it is just "rumours"[[19]]. Mountain157 (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): historical articles should always comply with the major content policies as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:No fringe theory and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I think the promoted idea about Tartary as a separate Empire does not meet the criteria above. Jingiby (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you realize that the source I gave for the information comes from a government agency? Wikipedia's fringe theory policy states that "Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources", for which I am pretty sure the CIA meets the definition of.Mountain157 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
    1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
    2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
    3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography
    4. Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography.
    5. Earlier scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic.
    Your source does not meet no one. Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The original thread was closed, but it was immediatly reopened at ANI as a boomerang. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My intention in opening up the threads both at ANI and here was to cover use conduct there, and the actual article content here. If it is decided that they are redundant, I will accept their ruling. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    White genocide conspiracy theory, editor adding material showing that low birth rates can be beneficial

    See WP:NORN#Are these edits to White genocide conspiracy theory original research? and particular Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worse than that. The basic idea behind the white genocide conspiracy theory is that whites are having fewer children while minorities are having more children. The editor pushing WP:OR on Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory insists that white supremacists are just as concerned about declining birthrates among blacks. I guess that's why the racist bastards advocate sterilizing all blacks... :(
    This one calls for the liberal application of a Clue By Four... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    After going to ANI and being shot down, the editing at White genocide conspiracy theory has started up. I have purposely avoided looking at these edits because I think I may have an unconscious bias. I would reall appreciate it if someone else here looked into them. I am offering double the normal rate of pay and as much overtime as you want to work. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    White supremacists (and trolls pretending to be white supremacists) have lately been inspired to crawl out from under their usual rocks on the internet. But I don't see any new material regarding birth rates added to the article since you last edited. Did I miss it? Handy dandy master diff: [20]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    After being shot down at ANI the disruption has pretty much settled down to pushing WP:OR on the article talk page. And it doesn't look like the current problems are with white supremacists but rather an overzealous editor pushing ideas like "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people." No, that's not a typo. And no, no source says that. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That claim, while poorly phrased, is not facially ludicrous as you seem to think it is. One could argue that those who spread the theory do it for this reason: to make white people afraid ("They are attacking and attempting to destroy our culture and way of life") in order to inspire them to political action ("Rise up to oppose them, strike them first before they can destroy us.") It's pretty clear from their talk page posts that's how this user intended that sentence to read. The source used for that claim is an SPLC researcher saying that the white genocide conspiracy theory's purpose is "to strike fear in the hearts of white people in countries that are diversifying" [21] (there's more in that source along those lines). It's an unconventional (and I'd argue incorrect) use of the word "terrorize", and the sourcing is not sufficient to make such a claim in wikipedia's voice, but it's not an absurd thing to argue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghost hunting

    A student enrolled in a college editing course needs help understanding WP:OR. They have WP saying that Kirlian photography "introduced the use of technology and cameras as a method to find evidence of ghosts during paranormal investigations“, when there isn't any sources for that connection. Also they are rather fond of large scale cut-and-paste from other articles. Another voice appreciated here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Kirlian seemed to believe more in "auras", which as I understand it are different than "ghosts". But he certainly used cameras and technology to find what he believed was evidence for that phenomena. ApLundell (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Wilson and vaccination

    On 12 March I received a rather disquieting tweet from the subject of this article. The exchange can be seen here. This gained me a number of new twitter followers who seemed to approve of Wilson's tweet ("go get him!").

    Our article is still pretty dire and the content in question possibly undue anyway - but Wilson seems very keen for our article to carry material countering press reports about anti-vaccination comments she made. To my mind the heavy use of her own blog to this end is unduly self-serving. Having been warned-off, I shall leave the content question to others.

    As a "PS" I received a further tweet saying "a Group of media academics and I have been attending to the article repeatedly To update the information"[22] which piqued my interest. Whatever the state of the article, it cannot be right for article content to be decided by coordinating WP:MEAT and twitter. No WP:COI disclosures have been made. I notice in recent times the accounts Writingtask and Fransplace seem to have focused on the content Wilson is complaining about.

    This may need to go to another noticeboard, but thoughts welcome - this reminds me of a couple of incidents in the past years where there have been issues with decisions about fringe content/BLP being taken off-wiki rather than thrashed-out transparently here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Incredibly problematic. I will have a crack at cutting the promotional content when I can. – Teratix ₵ 10:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks better now. --mfb (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of fringe scholar Margaret Barker as a source

    Raised at WP:RSN#Is Margaret Barker a reliable source for the Book of Enoch or Seven Archangels?. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Busby

    There has been an uptick in activity trying to push a POV that this individual is not pushing Fringe science and promoting supplements that are claimed to mitigate the effects of ingested radioisotopes. Additional eyes will be helpful. --VVikingTalkEdits 17:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    David Frawley

    Although there is criticism in the article, there's no mention of his Hindutva views. An IP added some sources on the talk page a while ago, and it was brought to my attention today so I've added another. No time quite yet to work on it. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hallwang Clinic GmbH

    I would appreciate some more eyes on this page, which is about a clinic offering complementary therapies for cancer patients, and its talk page. It has been argued that we should provide balance to reliably-sourced criticism by a qualified oncologist by allowing content sourced to a TV report that doesn't name the clinic and to a fundraising blog, and also that anyone who criticises complementary therapies is necessarily non-neutral. I have tried to discuss the issue, but, quite frankly, I am finding this too stressful to deal with further. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pandeism

    Hello! In mulling over which noticeboard to use, I considered RSN as well as BLPN, because of related issues, but it seems to me that "pandeism" and the specific "experts" being invoked here are actually fringe territory, so have at it. Hyperbolick is here claiming that "experts" are admissible, such as those cited by "biblefalseprophet.com" and Rousas John Rushdoony of the "Chalcedon Foundation", even in blog form, for supporting extraordinary claims about the doctrine of pandeism, as well as extraordinary biographical claims about such figures as Pope Francis and Barack Obama. I don't know about you, but when I see poorly-formatted rants on low-rent websites named "biblefalseprophet", red flags go up and I consider whether we are dealing with fringey beliefs here. Furthermore, there are some WP:SYNTH issues with the way he is citing the Catechism and Catholic Encyclopedia comments on Pantheism and Deism to support assertions about Pandeism in particular. Hyperbolick is a passionate and dedicated proponent of Pandeism, and all his edits (as well as edits on previous accounts) are focused in this topic area. He does not seem interested, so far, in discussion or examination of the applicable policies and guidelines. I would appreciate a few more eyes on the topic, and voices in the discussion, to build some consensus here and resolve this amicably. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Like the poster above, I don’t know where to begin, so much nonsense to deal with. Easily proven untrue. First that “all edits are focused in this topic area.” Been here two years (only this account, have picked up drafts left by others), I have close to 9000 edits. Vast majority nothing to do with this. Go back a page or two in my edit history, makes this lie obvious.
    Nobody is claiming here that Obama and the Pope are Pandeists. Simply accurately pointing out that others have called them that, meaning it as a criticism of Pandeism. No different then if we were talking about Neptunian aliens, and some renegade astronomy professor or New York Times pundit claimed Obama and the Pope are Neptunian. Hang on, more to come. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This anonymous character has unusual ideas about some policies. Didn’t like that Kramer wrote to a blog (yes, Kramer is a published expert, go to Amazon and search books by “Father Paul Kramer“), so I cited to Gloria.tv. Good enough for what it is being cited for. Rushdoony isn’t a blog at all, unless our anonymous friend thinks people are blogging in 1971. The cite is a published book. As to synth, Pandeism is a kind of Deism. Would be absurd to discuss the Church position on Pandeism without discussing position on Deism. It’s called background. There is no article, Catholic Church and Deism, so where else to put this? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Last point. Criticism draft is a draft. Not sure why somebody would get bent over something not even an article. Sometimes drafts have material waiting for citation or for better citations or for working into some other form. But don’t delete a bunch of stuff in draft just because you think it wrong for article space, where it isn’t. I’d like the removal of material by the IP from across these articles reversed. If you think better citations are needed, there’s a tag for that. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We've been here before, with a discussion here in 2013 and a no consensus failed deletion attempt back in 2005. I just don't have time now to sort through it, but unless there's been a lot of sourcing improvement, there are problems. Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    First, the accusation that User:Hyperbolick is some kind of WP:SPA is definitely false. They have 8,000 edits as of now, and I actually didn't have to look hard to see that they have edited in many diverse areas, including creating lean but potentially useful stubs for the Guyana National Service, Thomas Price (governor), and for the name Sally.
    With respect to the actual dispute at issue: neither party has acted blamelessly, but the IP has the worst of it. The IP removed text from an article on the basis that it was poorly sourced. Hyperbolick seems to have tried to remedy that, since they restored the text but also added a source, though not a great source. The IP then went on what comes across as a vindictive edit-warring tear, removing material including properly sourced material, and removing similar material from another article and a related draft, and edit-warring against the restoration of some permissible material, rather than leaving it in place and moving on to discussion. Hyperbolick did make an uncivil comment in reverting one of these deletions and the IP also made an uncivil comment on the talk page in my opinion.
    The actual controversy here can be avoided with a little common sense. WP:BLP concerns are a red herring, as no one will read a "renegade priest" of middling notablity calling the Pope a pandeist as Wikipedia claiming that the Pope is actually a pandeist. However, the claim is of very low importance. It isn't really a claim about pandeism, or about the position of the Catholic Church on pandeism, so Hyperbolick would be well advised to just let it go and not fight over it further.
    I have a few other comments about the content, but will leave them on the talk page of the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the SPA comment. I had confused the current account of Hyperbolick with the other one he ran for eight years. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology accepted. Let’s call it done and move forward positively. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Negro-Egyptian languages

    How does this stuff get by AFC?[23] See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negro-Egyptian languages. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Elsevier

    publishing crap. Ancient humans who had 12 strand DNA used sun crystals for propulsion of their rockets and special clothing for their space-suits.......∯WBGconverse 11:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there an article this is relevant to or is this just a general announcement? Natureium (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Natureium, this board has a tradition of being used for dissemination of miscellaneous information about fringe-issues that may not be linked to the immediate development of any article. ∯WBGconverse 11:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If genuine, it raises questions about the reliability of Elsevir as a source. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    Obviously non-RS, and another reminder that Elsevier is not a source per se. It is a publisher that publishes a lot of solid scientific literature and a lot of crap. Materials Today: Proceedings, which is essentially an on-demand publisher of random conference proceedings, will almost surely always fall into the latter group. Abecedare (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Mail is also a publisher that publishes solid news along with rubbish. How do we discriminate? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    Start by looking at the publisher: Elsevier is somewhat of a mixed bag. Then look at the specific journal: its publishing history, editorial board, impact factor, reviews/citations in non-technical media etc. Then look at the particular article: type of article (consensus statement, review, original report etc), authors, type and number of citations etc. Then look at the actual claim being sourced to the article, to judge if it is routine, novel, controversial, or extraoordinary. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One red flag for me is that it is a conference paper. At least in my experience, conference papers and abstracts often are not peer-reviewed; typically accepted and printed as submitted; and can be non-RS. As a result, such publications are of highly varible quality and can include fringe science of the worst quality. As a geologist, I have seen Young Earth creationists and fringe catastrophists regularly present their thinly disguised ideas in conventional sounding posters and talks at Geological Society of America (GSA) and American Geophysical Union (AGU) Meetings to build up their appearance as serious scientists and create a list of legitimately sounding citations as support for their ideas in their tracts and apologetics. There are often too many abstracts at AGU, GSA, and many other meetings for each one to be vetted. Typically, my experience has been is it is Caveat emptor when dealing with conference papers and abstracts. Paul H. (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very good point. ∯WBGconverse 11:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Republican Party's rejection of climate change

    There's a discussion about the Republican Party and whether it rejects the scientific consensus on climate change on Republican Party (United States). Editors are disputing that the Republican party and numerous GOP party members reject climate change (even though RS extensively document that this is the case and these RS are cited in the article) by citing the lack of any mention of climate change in the GOP official platform and by citing how Republican Senators voted for a statement recognizing that climate change is real (but also overwhelmingly rejecting a statement that humans significantly contribute to climate change).[24] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is "we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible" consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are levels of disagreement, all of which are labled "climate change denial" by the other side.
    In order of strongest scientific evidence/craziest opposition to weakest scientific evidene/ most reasonable opposition:
    • We are able to measure global CO2 levels, and there is no conspiracy to lie about them.
    • We are able to measure global temperature, and there is no conspiracy to lie about them.
    • Global atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from starting time X to the present.
    • Global temperatures have risen from starting time X to the present.
    • Human activity has caused CO2 levels to rise.
    • Rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures are correlated.
    • Rising CO2 levels cause at least part of the rising temperatures.
    • Rising CO2 levels cause most of the rising temperatures.
    • Rising CO2 levels cause almost all of the rising temperatures.
    • Rising temperatures have some bad effects
    • Rising temperatures have almost all bad effects and almost no good effects.
    • The only way to reduce temperatures is to reduce CO2 emissions. No possible geoengineering approach will ever work.
    • It cannot possibly be true that we have gone too far to reduce global warming.
    • Humans can not adapt to climate change.
    • No free market solution to global warming is possible. The only possible solution is to increase the size and power of the federal government.
    • Reducing US CO2 emissions while allowing China to increase CO2 emissions will reduce global temperatures.
    • Reducing California CO2 emissions while allowing the rest of the US to increase CO2 emissions will reduce global temperatures.
    • Reducing San Francisco CO2 emissions while allowing the rest of the California to increase CO2 emissions will reduce global temperatures.
    • It is absolutely true that many republicans are anti-science because they deny climate change. It cannot possibly be true that many democrats are anti-science because they are antivax or anti-GMO.
    There are some Republicans who disagree with the things at the very top of the above list. but most do not. Most republicans (and some democrats) disagree with the things on the very bottom of the list. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If many Democrats are against vaccinations or GMO against scientific evidence and make that part of their politics it should be mentioned in their article. Many of your bullet points are not binary things, which can make it difficult to judge. Take "Humans can not adapt to climate change." for example. We are certainly not unable to adapt to any change. But how much can we adapt, and to changes how large? Anyway, just 3% of Republicans in Congress (2014) accepting rising temperatures from human activities means 97% are in denial of very well-established science, no need to go to later bullet points. That is a very high fraction, and it is important to discuss this. --mfb (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the text that is under dispute:
    The Republican Party is unique in denying anthropogenic climate change among conservative political parties across the Western world.
    There has also been a dispute about whether a similar sentence should be included in the lede.
    Also, please note that the article, in its current form, already contains a five-paragraph section that discusses the GOP position on climate change and other environmental issues in some depth (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Environmental_policies).
    Finally, I do not see anything in the article that compares the GOP's position on ANY issue to the positions taken by conservative parties elsewhere in the world. SunCrow (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That the GOP position on climate change is out of sync with all mainstream parties, including conservative parties, in the Western world is a notable fact - a fact covered extensively by reliable sources. If there are other policies that make GOP conservatism unique and RS cover those policies, then we can certainly add that as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we talking about the Republican party here in USA? Because, if so, Guy Macon's description of what they believe does not match what you can often see them saying on TV with their own mouth. ApLundell (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the problem is that the loudest Republicans are also the stupidest, the most corrupt, and those who have the craziest worldviews? From what all the big-name Republicans say, one definitely gets the impression that most Republican politicians are anti-science, especially anti-climate science. Also conspiracy-theory-touting, theocratic, pro-billionaire Bond-villain-like weirdos. But does the Party as a whole agree with the loudmouths? Does it still have a sane wing? Is it actually bigger than the loony one? That would be nice. But if that is the case, why don't they do something about it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hob Gadling, this is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. Take a breath. SunCrow (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What is "the party has a whole" even? Do all its members agree on anything? The Republicans with the most influence are overwhelmingly denying reality. Here is another list. This is something I have never seen in that amount from other democratic parties anywhere in the world (but my personal impression is not a reliable source of course). --mfb (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To get a sense of the views of any American political party “as a whole” we can look at documents called “party platforms”. These are formal statements created during party conventions outlining what the party (as a whole) stands for. Individual party members may disagree with specific “planks” of the platform, but they will agree with most of it. The current Republican Party platform does NOT deny the reality of climate change.
    That said... I think it would be helpful to separate climate science from climate politics. The fact that that climate changes is science. The various theories as to how and why it is currently changing is science. But... the question of what we should do about climate change... that is climate politics. People can agree on the science, and yet disagree on the politics. Let’s not conflate the two. Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Platforms do not necessarily reflect what a party stands, just as campaign brochures for individual candidates do not necessarily reflect all that a candidate stands for. There are strong incentives to omit controversial items or to phrase controversial policies in vague ways. For example, the GOP platform calls for cutting taxes, yet the GOP in its tax plan raised taxes for some Americans. This is why we rely on reliable secondary sources about what parties and individual candidates stand for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    e/c Shouldn't the text under dispute say "anthropogenic global warming" rather that "anthropogenic climate change". -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that they changed "global warming" to "climate change" back when they were warning about the coming ice age, and have largely gone back to "global warming" as the climate has warmed instead of cooling. IMO we should do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This right here is a myth. There was never a widespread scientific belief that human activity was causing an ice-age. A few scientists discussed this, and headlines ran with it, as they do, but it was nothing like the current understanding in global warming.[25] (However it's a useful myth for the denyers that like to portray scientists as not really knowing anything and constantly changing their mind.)
    In any case, the alleged belief in a coming ice-age was supposed to have been in the 70s. Completely the wrong decade for the fad of calling "Global warming" "climate change".
    ApLundell (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; I don’t remember seeing “anthropogenic” anything from that era. IIRC the talk of a coming ice-age was mainly premised on the observation that the current interglacial period (assuming that’s what it is) has lasted longer than average, so might be expected to end soon. On the question of political parties, my (scarcely informed) impression is that the American Republicans are by no means unique. Canadian conservative leaders generally pay lip-service to the science while allowing (or tacitly encouraging) their members to dissent from it; their party platforms tend to ignore the question except that they generally oppose any political & economic measures intended to mitigate it, in similar fashion to the Republicans quoted below.—Odysseus1479 01:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a question above about what the loudest republicans believe vs what the party believes. The party as a whole decided on a platform before the last election. The only place it mentions climate change is here:

    From the Republican Party Platform:

    "The current Administration’s most recent National Security Strategy reflects the extreme elements in its liberal domestic coalition. It is a budget-constrained blueprint that, if fully implemented, will diminish the capabilities of our Armed Forces... the strategy subordinates our national security interests to environmental, energy, and international health issues, and elevates 'climate change' to the level of a 'severe threat' equivalent to foreign aggression. The word 'climate,' in fact, appears in the current President’s strategy more often than Al Qaeda, nuclear proliferation, radical Islam, or weapons of mass destruction."

    Compare this with the Democratic Platform from the same year:

    "Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time... Climate change poses an urgent and severe threat to our national security, and Democrats believe it would be a grave mistake for the United States to wait for another nation to take the lead in combating the global climate emergency. According to the military, climate change is a threat multiplier that is already contributing to new conflicts over resources, catastrophic natural disasters, and the degradation of vital ecosystems across the globe.
    "Democrats recognize the catastrophic consequences facing our country, our planet, and civilization... We believe the United States must lead in forging a robust global solution to the climate crisis. We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II... Our generation must lead the fight against climate change and we applaud President Obama’s leadership in forging the historic Paris climate change agreement. We will not only meet the goals we set in Paris, we will seek to exceed them and push other countries to do the same by slashing carbon pollution and rapidly driving down emissions of potent greenhouse gases like hydrofluorocarbons... The best science tells us that without ambitious, immediate action across our economy to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, all of these impacts will be far worse in the future. We cannot leave our children a planet that has been profoundly damaged."

    So the actual republican party platform doesn't actually deny climate change, but does question whether it is as important as the Democrats say it is. I personally am pretty much with the democrats on this, with the exception of not believing climate change to be more important than nuclear proliferation. The Paris agreement? Not so much. None of the major industrialized nations implemented the policies they agreed on and none have met their pledged emission reduction targets. Which just might have something to do with the lack of any enforcement mechanism or penalty for failure. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have read a lot of the sources and the debate among editors. It appears to me that the accurate portrayal of the Republican Party's position is that they agree that human activity is causing some of the current warming, but that there is doubt as to how much, that a few degrees more would not be a huge problem for humanity anyway, and that massive CO2 reduction would kill global prosperity, so that no drastic action is warranted. That some people want to call this position "denialism" is a testament to the current hysterical political climate about our planet's climate and how it changes. — JFG talk 08:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, we have a rule that says that your opinion does not count, and that we have to report the far more reasonable views written in reliable sources.
    When science comes to the conclusion that it will be a huge problem, denial of that conclusion by financially and ideologically interested uninformed/disinformed laymen is correctly called denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cryonics activity

    A COI editor has been working on Cryonics and has asked for help at User talk:Mbark22#Help me!. Maybe needs watching. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've alerted the user to the discretionary sanctions for complementary and alternative medicine. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

    Skeptical journals and Skeptoid as reliable sources

    Some help needed please. I know we have had discussions over the years about using Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic magazine (UK, Australia and USA) as well as Skeptoid as reliable sources. I thought I had these discussions bookmarked and probably do but it is in a sea of bookmarks. Can someone please point me to the final decision. From time to time I run into people saying that they are "just blogs" which is obviously incorrect. Sgerbic (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a relevant policy: WP:PARITY. It says:
    "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals."
    -Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe theory of the month: fake snow that burns instead of melting

    Did you know that the snow that paralyzed Atlanta, Georgia in January of 2014 was not really snow? It was some sort of weird engineered chemical that didn't melt, and scorched when held to a flame! Here is a video where our fearless investigator risks his life by trying to set fire to a snowball with a bic lighter. What will happen?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmT3wcu8Ed0

    Bonus science: How Microwaving Grapes Makes Plasma

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCrtk-pyP0I

    --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This was as big fad on social media years ago.
    Is it coming back around? Is there a content dispute in some snow-related article? Or are we just laughing at how dumb people were in 2014?
    ApLundell (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No. No. Yes. Natureium (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blue Moon (1934 song)

    Just noticed that text related to a dubious authorship dispute, which received publicity recently in the New York Times, has been getting excessive weight in the article. Beginning with the aggressive efforts of an SPA, the authorship of the song was actually listed in the lead sentence as "disputed" even though this fringe theory has not even been mentioned in scholarship on Rodgers and Hart, much less given any credence whatever. I searched Newspapers.com and Google Books and found no mention of it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Location hypotheses of Atlantis

    Location hypotheses of Atlantis seems to have accumulated quite a large amount of cruft. While historic speculation about the location might be notable many of the referenced "theories" do not appear to be. Numerous dubious "references"[26] and broken links[27] to unreliable sources among many other issues. --mikeu talk 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    May need a purge or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't some technical issue that "may need a purge or something" but an issue about independent reliable sources. That article needs such reliable sources that write about claims of the location of Atlantis, not unreliable sources that make such claims. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    About time. I'll try to help. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh my. The Google search atlantis location has as the top result the pull quote "According to Michael Hübner, Atlantis core region was located in South-West Morocco at the Atlantic Ocean." --mikeu talk 22:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That's funny. Nobody mentioned it when I lived there. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You lived in the Atlantic Ocean? Is your secret identity Aquaman? If so, good job fighting those Nazi U-boats. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reformed Egyptian

    Needs some eyes. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

    This needs cleaning up, it's being rewritten from an LDS perspective. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    South Atlantic tropical cyclone

    There's currently a debate going in that determines of Anita is a tropical cyclone or subtropical cyclone. It's widely known that Anita is a tropical cyclone, but sources added by User:Livia Dutra states that the storm was actually subtropical and never transitioned into a tropical cyclone. The user added some sources that appears to be reliable, but I feared that those sources violates WP:FRINGE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:SPS. What do you all think? INeedSupport :3 23:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am pretty skeptical that it would ever be possible for controversy over the classification of a storm as either tropical or subtropical would ever fall under the remit of our guideline about fringe theories. jps (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it go clockwise or anticlockwise looking from here? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends on where "here" is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with jps that this seems to be a content issue rather than anything concerned with fringe topics. You say that it's widely known that Anita is a tropical cyclone, so I would suggest that you discuss this on the talk page on the basis of recent sources that contradict those added by Livia Dutra, rather than carry on reverting. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it INeedSupport :3 17:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Carlton Fredericks

    IP editor is objecting to use of QuackWatch to source the fact that this health-guru of yesteryear was a heavy smoker. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Moore, Donald Trump, and Fringe Anti-Climate Science Industry Interests

    There's an going attempt to get Patrick Moore (consultant) switched back to Patrick Moore (environmentalist) over here. Environmentalist was clearly widely rejected on the talk page. Keep also in mind that both Moore himself and his many Twitter followers have been plaguing this entry since Moore asked them to do so and especially since Trump tweeted a promotion of Moore's anti-climate science and pro-industry comments. A major proponent of fringe ecology pseudoscience, this guy is as much an environmentalist as an ExxonMobil CEO is, folks. Sometimes a duck is a duck, and this certainly needs more eyes from users watching this board. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Answers in Genesis

    Need more eyes at Answers in Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- recently protected for three days because of edit warring, protection about to expire. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pre-Big Bang physics

    Pre–Big_Bang_physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I stumbled across this stub today which appeared to be a poorly executed POV-fork in my judgment. (White hole cosmology is an Answers in Genesis argument, incidentally.) I think the easiest thing to do is to redirect to our main article on the subject, so I did that: [28]. Hopefully no one objects, but thought I would post here for transparency.

    jps (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Failed predictions in Arctic sea ice decline

    Can someone take a look at Arctic sea ice decline, in particular this series of edits by XavierItzm, which puts a lot of emphasis on purportedly failed predictions of "sea ice-free summers" in the Arctic?[29] The section seems intended to highlight how climate scientists are alarmist and repeatedly fail to predict the climate. I don't know enough about the section to gauge whether the text is compliant with WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the use of news media sources here is a problem. One, such sources tend to prioritize the most dramatic claims irrespective of whether they are widely held or not. Two, mostentimes when I see news media discussing Arctic sea ice they still are more hedged than the sample presented by that editor. Seems like the edits should be reverted as they rely on not tip-top and apparently cherry-picked sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis

    See [30]. Not fringe? Doug Weller talk 05:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That's clearly out to lunch. The only source added for any of these changes was this, which they called a "CIA source". I have reverted pending discussion on the talk page. Bradv🍁 05:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I struggle to understand why we have true polar wander separated from this article. This article appears to be a WP:POV fork of the less well-developed article on polar wander. Should we merge and cull? jps (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientific studies performed on private revelations and visionaries

    New article uses some combination of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE in an attempt to to connect science with various religious miracles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    cryonics

    Hi Arbitration Committee

    Thank you for pointing out where I have gone wrong. My apologies, I am new to this.

    My reason for joining was to learn how to create an article for our non-profit arts foundation. A colleague of mine has had dealings with the Cryonics Institute in the US. I was talking to him about how I intend to create a Wikipedia article and that I was learning how to do it. I then had an email from one of the people at the Cryonics Institute asking me if I could assist them, purely voluntary.

    I did not realize that the subject of complementary and alternative medicine fell into a special category and I underestimated the sensitivity of the subject and its controversial content.

    There is no conflict of interest as I am not doing this for myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I do not have any external relationship with the institute or its members.

    I was just asked if I can make the following changes: Replace corpse with body - I don't see the problem here as the definition of a corpse is a dead body "Corpse and cadaver are both medical/legal terms for a dead body. ... Although cadaver is the older word, it has come to refer in particular to a dead body used for medical or scientific purposes". Removing the sentence containing the word 'quackery' seems acceptable as by your own definition "A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess". From what I have read the Institute is neither fraudulent nor an ignorant pretender. The other changes follow the same reasoning as above.

    If you believe that I am treading on thin ice then please tell me and I'll walk away from helping the Institute!

    Mbark22 (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=890555358"