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 Blue-Sonnet (talk | contribs) at 05:27, 9 June 2019 (→‎Fish Physiology). 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.

    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

    • 09 Jun 2024 – HeartMath Institute (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by BD2412 (t · c) was closed as redirect by OwenX (t · c) on 16 Jun 2024; see discussion (10 participants)

    Categories for discussion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Peer reviews

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split


    Freeman Dyson's views on climate change

    The Freeman Dyson article contains a lot of content where he delineates his views on climate change (which go against the scientific consensus).[1] The text seems largely self-sourced, which seems inappropriate for someone who is not an expert in the field of climate science. Someone should take a look at the page to make sure it's compliant with WP:FRINGE and that it's not uses as a soapbox for climate change disinformation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think it's the worst I've seen but I did prune it a little bit. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Freeman Dyson's work for the JASON Group in assessment of the post-thermonuclear environment, his part in discussion of the validity of the TTAPS model and the nuclear winter hypothesis actually does establish Dyson as a competent voice in the field of climate studies. Freeman Dyson's views as a mathematical physicist who has studied catastrophic global clinate change in the wake of global thermonuclear war are notable. Are there competent WP:RS specifically calling Freeman Dyson's views 'fringe' for reasons other than they don't conform to the scientific consensus? loupgarous (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that his views don't confirm to the scientific consensus is the very reason they are fringe. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 05:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem with the BIO: the views are balanced. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    What? He opened his mouth when a debate happened that had to do with climate, therefore he is a climate expert? That is... let's say, it's not the usual definition. Usually, he should, you know, actually have done research on the subject. Published it in peer-reviewed papers. Been a part of the climatological community. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in fact the article quotes Dyson as saying that "I do not know much [about] the technical facts," so Dyson himself says he's not an expert. I agree with User:Xxanthippe that the bio is balanced, but perhaps it would be worthwhile to put in a short quote from the NY Times Magazine article [23] criticizing Dyson (inserting it before "In reply, he notes..."). NightHeron (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I put in a quote from climate scientist James Hansen criticizing Dyson. NightHeron (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rand Flem-Ath

    Those knowledgable about fringe topics and authors writing about them may want to weigh in about this. --Calton | Talk 22:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am well-acquainted with Mr.and Mrs. Flem-Ath and their books. A summary of their unremarkable ideas about Atlantis being in Antarctica can be found at Flem-Ath, Rand and Rose in Atlantipedia. Despite what I have read and heard about Mr. Rand Flem-Ath, I (thankfully) lack any idea what is being discussed in his comments. Paul H. (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Flem-Ath seems to be suggesting that one of Professor John Hoopes' students is close to Nazis, and is accusing John of possibly coercing students to say negative things about him. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is an incorrect interpretation of his remarks. Flem-Ath is rightly saying that he doesn't want to be affected through guilt-by-association with a former neo-Nazi who also happens to be a prolific author on Atlantis. However, I think that the guilt-by-association interpretation is also incorrect. Most writers on Atlantis are not Nazis. Hoopes (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It needs AFDing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If Flem-Ath is talking about a fellow editor, is that a violation of Wikipedia policy concerning personal attacks? Also, his ideas about Atlantis are not at all notable. Paul H. (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Flem-Ath did not refer to me by name, but Doug Weller recognized it was me and introduced my name to the discussion. I would prefer that the hostile comments be deleted. Hoopes (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He denies meaning the student and says my "tone and aggressive attack violates many BLP policies" I have found two Kirkus reviews and of course Hancock talks about him. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's notable he should have an article. He knows that a Wikipedia article will contain criticism and naturally doesn't want that. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven did you see this version?[2] Doug Weller talk 20:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC) oops, @Slatersteven: Doug Weller talk 21:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and I still think its needs AFDing, Not really all that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hancok gives Flem-Ath a lot of credit for Fingerprints of the Gods. Then there's this book by Gary Lachman[3] There's pretty clearly enough and I'm sure there's more. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Graham Hancock in Fingerprints of the Gods (1995: 465-66), Flem-Ath was the bridge between Charles Hapgood and his own theories that revived the cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis and suggested Atlantis might have been located in Antarctica. The notion of a pole shift gained traction as part of the 2012 phenomenon and Hancock has since published two other major books about a "lost civilization". According to Gary Lachman in Beyond the Robot (2016), a biography of Colin Wilson, Flem-Ath also played a key role in Wilson's publication of at least two books about Atlantis, on one of which he was a co-author. Both Hancock's and Lachman's comments suggest notability in the influence and perpetuation of certain fringe theories. Hoopes (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Flem-Ath's claims and apparent hostility towards me suggest that I should not be editing this article given a possible BLP conflict of interest. Hoopes (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimmy Dore, peddler of Seth Rich and Syria conspiracy theories

    Jimmy Dore runs a show that "peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes"[4] and Seth Rich conspiracy theories[5][6][7]. However, there is gatekeeping going on at the article where we are not allowed to add content that relates to this conspiracy-theory-pedding. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This[8] is an example of the problems I'm talking about... regular editors adding YouTube videos from the subject of the article claiming that RS are reporting negatively on him because the RS are geared at "getting advertising off their competitor's platform." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Using a one line reference about Dore is a clear case of cherry-picking. This discussion has come up many times in discussions of far right topics, and editors regardless of political position have agreed that serious accusations require strong sources. I don't think that Jimmy Dore is far left as normally understood. There is no discussion on his show about Karl Marx or calls for violent revolution or terrorism. It's a serious BLP violation to make such claims. Dore's show of course mentioned both the Syria chemical attacks and the Seth Rich case, as did CNN and other mainstream media. TFD (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Timothy Good

    Timothy Good (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Newly created bio of UFO conspiracy theorist. Only content so far is a bibliography and a supposed top secret military document from 1948 that Good apparently hypes as proof of a conspiracy. Worth reviewing and watchlisting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I marked it for deletion, he seems to have no notability - Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    * Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Good_(2nd_nomination)
    Reliably-sourced coverage does exist, but the issues raised by WP:FRINGEBLP definitely apply here. The sources all treat the individual with a WP:SENSATIONAL angle (Example: [9]), so there may not be enough serious, in-depth coverage with which to write an objective biography. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular article looks like a press release (and ending with an ad for a new book)... —PaleoNeonate – 12:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet the BBC source with the “Alien Bases Revealed” headline is being held up as authoritative. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we may have stumbled upon a new group of UFO-credulous active here at Wikipedia. This may get sticky. jps (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think well meaning inclusionists will realize the problem when Good’s bio starts getting filled up with his actual views - which are frankly bonkers - and for which there is no published analysis or critique from any RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Will they? I am seeing people who look like they are very sympathetic to the idea that the new flurry of interest is somehow indicative of a "mainstreaming" of alien-contact mythology. jps (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if true, this isn't the hill you want to die on. The reasons why the sources fail WP:FRINGEBLP have been made abundantly clear at the AfD. Bludgeoning individual editors isn't going to change their minds. As mentioned, once the bio gets full of Good's wacky ideas, a {{Fringe_theories}} template will undoubtedly become a permanent feature of the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure I'm comfortable with a solution where Wikipedia allows BLPs to be permatagged. I understand the concern about fighting for naught, but I am more concerned that the relatively poor quality of our UFO content (compared to, say, creationism) is misleading people into thinking there is a there there. On my long list of things to do is to fix the main article. Perhaps I should get back to that. jps (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe material being added to articles by an IP

    See [10] note the edit summaries and Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Qualifications of Researchers. Love the "You can't remove citations just because authors are creationists or Bible college graduates." Doug Weller talk 19:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for spotting; some extant material remains at Sodom and Gomorrah and Tall el-Hammam, I opened a discussion at the Sodom article but noticed that there already was a previous thread about the same topic, with no apparent new developments... —PaleoNeonate – 00:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And at List of possible impact structures on Earth where it was restored. —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: the IP disruption ceased, but a few extant discussions are at Talk:Trinity Southwest University#Third party sources and Talk:Sodom and Gomorrah#Meteoritic explosion. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    History of chiropractic reads like an essay

    History of chiropractic needs a lot of work. Like TNT-levels of work. The whole thing reads like a high-school essay written by an advocate.

    74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase

    Why Anti-vax Doctors Are Ordering 23andMe Tests: Naturopaths have long been obsessed with a gene called MTHFR. Now vaccine skeptics are testing for it too.

    Key quote:

    "The anti-vaccine movement is decidedly outside of mainstream medicine, but it has always borrowed the language and trappings of mainstream science. By tapping into the wider interest in genetics, vaccine skeptics are attempting to tap into scientific legitimacy. The early hype about the power of genes and the early spate of now outdated research made genetics research all the more exploitable."

    --Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

    This article could benefit from the attention of some knowledgeable editors experienced in handling fringe stuff. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Montford

    "Climate change skepticism" or "denial" again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ricardo Duchesne

    There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Ricardo_Duchesne that could use some additional eyes. The discussion concerns how extensively we can cite fringe sources like Occidental Quarterly to describe Duchesne's unorthodox views of history. Nblund talk 01:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    RSN discussion about Fox News' reliability on the subject of climate change

    See here[11]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mercieca

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    How is she related to fringe theories? --mfb (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    I did that and then asked here because I didn't see a connection. Looks like a regular scientist with somewhat low notability to me. --mfb (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Major changes needing auditing

    Unfortunately the way diffs are shown it's quite difficult, but I noticed some text changes other than citation ones. Eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 12:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    They cannot be a newbie, surely? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a stealth revert, probably a troll hoping to wreak havoc. Marking as "minor" is especially bad. Unclear what the motivations are. jps (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking at this, —PaleoNeonate – 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can happen by accident if you look at an older version, edit that and ignore the warning. --mfb (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, —PaleoNeonate – 00:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Atheist Atrocities fallacy

    Fresh article now at AfD (may possibly be of interest to some readers here). —PaleoNeonate – 00:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic does not exist in any reliable sources. I see it on blogs on google. But I also checked google scholar to see if there was any scholarly discussion of it - sometimes it happens - and I literally found no hit whatsoever [12]. The sources in the article are very poor: Kierkegaard and Locke do not discuss such a thing, Baggini actually links communism with atheism but adds that it does not apply vice versa. Also most of the article has no citations whatsoever so that is pretty much WP:OR. Now, if some reliable sources can be found for this supposed fallacy, then under those conditions, I would say keep.
    But that seems unlikely since the main and only source for the article itself is a blog The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot by Michael Sherlock. Actually, I suspect that Michael Sherlock himself wrote this article himself or a follower of this fringe theory since it follows his sections from his actual blog post almost exactly as it is in the article right now! The editor that wrote the whole article is a new editor User:Grace654321. Literally the article right now has similar structure and even the same wording as the blog post: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Tu quoque (“You Too”) Fallacy, False Analogy Fallacy, False Cause Fallacy, Poisoning the Well Fallacy, Slippery Slope Fallacy. Compare the article right now [13] with Michael Sherlock's original blog. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Alien visitation

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien visitation

    Please comment.

    jps (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Carolina Bays Section of Antonio Zamora article

    The Carolina Bays section of the article about Antonio Zamora needs to be revised as it presents his interpretations, which are considered fringe by many Quaternary geologists, "...without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." I would also argue that it lacks neutrality as it presents his interpretations as if they were accepted by mainstream scientists. Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just looking at this and it seems to already have been cleaned up by Doug. It would probably be possible to keep a mention but the section was definitely undue... —PaleoNeonate – 07:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Zamora. jps (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    no chance to edit

    ".without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." Unfortunately the section was deleted before I had a chance to address your concern. Mr Zamora's paper on the Carolina Bays was published in a peer reviewed journal. As far as I am aware all of the existing theories do not fully explain the creation of the Carolina Bays. Mr Zamoras paper offered an alternative and plausible explanation, although I believe certainly not watertight. He is a serious engineer and scientist and when I started the article I was not aware of his work on the Carolina Bays, I only knew of his pioneering work on automatic spelling correction and chemical abstracts. Ray3055 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References?

    "are considered fringe by many Quaternary geologists". I am willing add back in the section on his theory and to specifically mention any papers that call his paper 'fringe', I am only aware of one blog that mentioned a problem with the theory, but certainly it did not use the word fringe, and is itself hardly a reliable reference for Wikipedia. Ray3055 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So far, Zamora’s ideas have been mainly embraced by fringe catastrophists since it was published in 2017. An example of the acceptance of Zamora’s ideas by fringe catatsrophists is Michael Jaye in his book, The Worldwide Flood: Uncovering and Correcting the Most Profound Error in the History of Science. Also, Graham Hancock in Chapter 27 of his latest book, America Before argues for Zamora's hypothesis. There is a corresponding lack of equivalent discussion and support in mainstream publications, which together speaks volumes about Zamora’s credibility.
    In addition, peer review can be quite falliable. For example there the peer-reviewd paper, which also cites Zamora:
    Jaye, M., 2019. The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 19(1).
    PDF of paper
    Volume 19 - Issue 1
    Paper available: The Flooding of the Mediterranean Basin at the Younger-Dryas Boundary
    Being accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not provide special dispensation to fringe nature of Jaye ideas.
    Also, there is:
    Cholleti, E.R., Vaddadi, K. and Yadav, A.H.K., 2017. Puratana Aakasha-Yantrika Nirmana Sadhanavasthu (Ancient Aero-mechanical manufacturing materials) Materials Today: Proceedings, 4(8), pp.7704-7713.
    It was published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2017. Only in 2019 was it retracted because of its fringe nature. Peer-review is neither infallible nor always prevents bad science from being published as discussed in:
    Wright, V.P., 2019. Memes, False News, and the Death of Empiricism. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 89(4), pp.310-311.
    At the least, Zamora's hypothesis needs a credible, published, third party review of its significance to be mentioned as the lack of formal discussion just might mean that nobody, except fringe researchers, regard his paper serious or significant enough to discuss. A lot of bad science is simply ignored. Paul H. (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been unable to get his books published and has published them himself, either through "Zamora Consulting" or https://www.scientificpsychic.com/ - the first few lines of his website are:
    Scientific Psychic® is an educational web site dedicated to the exploration of the human mind with the objective of encouraging critical thinking, a healthy life style and improved communication skills.
    Psychic Chat
    Online Psychic Chat with Free Psychic Readings, Horoscopes, Tarot readings, and other interesting Paranormal Topics like ghosts and spirits.
    Try a Personal Psychic Reading with a live psychic!
    palm reading
    Palm Reading, Extrasensory Perception (ESP) Tests and the Scientific Psychic Workbook will let you explore aspects of your subjective perceptions and understand the scientific method.
    A section about the Solar System covers the timeline of the Earth, the evolution of the atmosphere, meteorite impacts, an analysis of the Carolina Bays, lunar craters and maria, and a geology ::glossary. This section also includes topics about human evolution, dinosaur classification and the tree of life.
    Younger Dryas Ejecta Curtain
    This video examines the geological traces left on a variety of terrains by the secondary impacts of ice boulders ejected by an extraterrestrial impact on the Laurentide Ice Sheet.
    Here's an example from last month where fringe got past peer review.[14] Doug Weller talk 16:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I could use an esoteric manicure...[15] —PaleoNeonate – 16:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    State atheism (fallacy)

    This has been raised over at WT:WikiProject Skepticism#State atheism and I'm cross-posting here. From a quick look it seems as if this article takes the approach of listing "atheist" states and then having laundry lists of Bad Things which have happened, possibly promulgating a fallacious line which is problematic from multiple of the WP:PAGs. Views? Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    From a brief look it does seem to be skewed that way BUT to use Mexico as an example, all of that material is in scope as its a result of the policy of state-mandated secularity. So in short, dont know. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine we would rewrite State religion in that way... --mfb (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article's title-topic is not mentioned in the sources cited in either, both are problematic, because if it's not the source designating "X event" as "State X", the article is (tacitly by including the event under the "State X" designation-title). Wikipedia is not a WP:SYNTH WP:ESSAY.TP ✎ ✓ 08:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure of the use of this board if no-one answers/examines the issue posted... and how long is it before threads with no replies are archived? TP ✎ ✓ 08:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, there's definitely an issue here. If I had the time as a first step I'd slash and burn removing content sourced to sources which did not directly & explicitly support a discussion of "state atheism", to satisfy WP:V better. But I don't have the time. It's not like it's actively harmful - just one to add mentally to the list of shit Wikipedia articles, probably. Alexbrn (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not only about time, it's about bother, because the carefully-concocted WP:SYNTH article is 'protected' by its creators (and their acolytes)... which is why I've limited my participation to the talk page, as the past has demonstrated that any changes will be reverted almost immediately (by magically-appearing 'reinforcements')... and a look through the article history will show that a few there don't play by the rules (anon 'voting' to 'enforce' reverts, waylay changes, etc.), and an often WP:GAMEd wikipedia seems to be quite toothless in dealing with this. But yes, there are many 'by a select demographic' (against, 'better than' another) articles on Wikipedia, and it's not just limited to religion (city, country articles, for example).
    But as far as this article is concerned, it would be wise to remove claims that are not supported by sources (not mentioning 'state atheism' or at least a derivative of the same term-topic-designation), as that is demonstrably pure WP:SYNTH. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 10:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, it is a rather low-level, low-traffic article, although it does come up top in Google results in a search for 'state atheism'... but only people who already subscribe to that 'interpretation' of history would ever use that as a search term, so I guess the damage it does is minimal. But what the 'only on wikipedia' (and WP:FRINGE-esque websites) aspects of that article does to Wikipedia's reputation, I don't know. TP ✎ ✓ 11:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    TheProemnader, I don't get how you keep on trying to WP:FORUMSHOP with such extreme desperation when you yourself already made an RFC which brought forth numerous and diverse editors - issues were addressed by now and most did not agree with you [16], you have had multiple discussions on the talk page itself which included more numerous and diverse editors - most did not agree with you, you also made an attempt to complain in a WP NoOriginalResearch Noticeboard which brought in even more numerous and diverse editors - no one agreed with you there either [17]. Now you seek even more from another noticeboard too? Clearly a lot of editors have disagreed with your paranoia and conspiracy theory mentality in all of this for a few years now too.

    It gets worse when we find that you are very hypocritical in that you support completely unsourced articles like Atheist Atrocities fallacy which clearly was WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:ESSAY and has no mainstream or academic references from any reliable sources. Lets not forget that that article was plagiarized from a cheap blog as I already demonstrated. I cannot believe that you are not complaining about that article!!!

    For an article that you say that is low volume and low impact you have certainly put up an obsessive (Herculean) effort of incorrect assertions and heavily biased opinions when they have all been addressed by numerous editors all of which were willing to listen to you. There clearly is no conspiracy here at all. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a different context however, a very new article not ready for main space usually deserves to be moved tp Draft space, where it's not search-engine indexed, may expire and get deleted if unsuccessfully submitted. The article would very likely have been deleted otherwise. —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed about that. The point was to look at the comments of ThePromenader in deletion discussion in how he did not raise any issues on that article like he does constantly on about the State Atheism article. I mean look at how many violations of wikipedia Policy the "Atheist Atrocities fallacy" article had at the time of review for deletion [18] and yet not much of a peep of WP:SYN, WP:OR, or WP:ESSAY from ThePromenader on that article. He even says "the phenomenon it describes is very real, as demonstrated by the well-sourced and well-cited article itself" and links the pseudo-conspiracy blog (which he has used numerous times as an argument against State Atheism). It shows his heavy bias on the matter. Preserve one and not the other at any cost. I at least was willing to preserve the dumb atrocities page if reliable sources were provided. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, I opened none of the inquiries into the article this time around (and my RfC request dates from... a year ago?), so the 'forum shopping' accusation is... misplaced, even more so than it was the first time around. And why the ad hominem instead of addressing the points raised? Lastly, and this is the second time I tell you this, I did not vote to 'keep' that unrelated article as it was, and voiced clearly my reservations with it. In all, this seems a desperate attempt to attract attention to anywhere but the article in question. TP ✎ ✓ 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: This inquiry, and the initial post on the Wikiproject Skepticism board that probably led to it, demonstrates that the resevations with this article are far from just my own. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 01:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You are the most interested editor in this article and you keep on stating the same nonsense that has already been addressed multiple times in different RFCs, noticeboards, and talk pages with many different editors. And your attempt today to expedite some consensus in your favor show that you are still doing the same thing - seeking allies instead of editorial opinions which you already got many times before in the RFC, noticeboards, and talk page. Your points have been extensively addressed per the links above. And yet you still persist in WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Actually the Wikiproject Skepticism board discussion was pretty much dead and not much was said and you attempted to revive it with the same arguments almost a month later on the Wikiproject Skepticism board. You did the same thing on this noticeboard. You did not have much of a reservation on the "atrocities" article since you did not condemn that article like you constantly do the State Atheism in the RFC, noticeboards, and talk pages. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, It was not I who opened the discussion on the on the Wikiproject Skepticism board, and the 'seeking allies' accusation is completely unfounded, so I don't see what continually attempting to make this about me has anything to do with the problems of the article itself. Again, the Wikiproject Skepticism board thread and this inquiry deomstrates that the concern is far from mine alone. TP ✎ ✓ 01:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With you saying stuff like "I'm not sure of the use of this board if no-one answers/examines the issue posted... and how long is it before threads with no replies are archived?" above, it shows that you have more interest than normal because no one is apparently replying or doing much in your favor. Most editors make their points and let others make their points if they care. You are trying hard to get even more attention when you have already received it in the RFC, the noticeboard, and the talk pages of the article. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is getting off-topic for this noticeboard. Please keep discussion focused on content. Discussion of editor behaviour belongs at user Talk pages or WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To get back on-topic, what would you suggest as a move forward? Reams of talk-page efforts to get an at least acknowledgement that very few of the article sources mention the article topic, or anything near it, were fruitless (answers were but circular distractions from that point), so I suggested a complete, perhaps section-by-section, claim-source review, much like the one ArtifexMayhem did over a year ago. I've already done a complete source-claim cleanup not so long ago, so that job should be much easier. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 09:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually numerous quotes have already been extensively extracted from sources already and recently as well. So it is clear that the sources certainly discuss the topic. It should be obvious that if no source mentions much relating to the topic that it should be amended or removed. On the other hand, if one holds to a conspiracy theory that the article is all SYN when the quotes clearly address the topic then there would be a problem. Also, all of this was very recently discussed in the article's talk page with the input of other editors. Ignoring the consensuses there is also a major issue of some editors like ThePromenader - who has a history of not listening to others in those discussions. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So since you affirm that the sources do mention the article-topic-title, then you obviously would also agree to a claim-source examination - great! It won't affect the article in the least - only its conclusion will. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the sources mention the topic - that is why they are cited. Duh. I have been verifying it myself directly. Why would it still be standing after all the attention it has received in the past few years from the RFC, the talk pages, the NOR noticboard, and even this noticeboard? I have been verifying the sources myself and examining the claims along with the sources by looking for the quotes. I have been able to find substantial number of quotes from the sources directly very easily and have posted them on the article itself for anyone to see. This is transparency. This is superior to having an editor like you or me or ArtifexMayhem making claims about a source (which could be misinterpreted due to our personal biases). Quotes show the actual statements made by the source and they have checked out quite well. If there are any issues then we can adjust per the sources.
    It is time for you to move on just like they told you at the WP:NOR noticeboard [19] over the exact same issue. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you do not want the article's sources to be verified. That and the persistant and misrepresentive 'look, keys!' ad hominems (in ignoring the concerns of other contributors, the very reason for this thread? - but as you were already told, take it to ANI) but underlines this, and that speaks pretty well for itself. TP ✎ ✓ 03:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The numerous quotes that I have been able to extract form the sources directly are pretty much extra verification since I actually looked many up myself and seemed like a good idea so that editors are not having to guess so much. It is not my word, it is the source's words for all to see for themselves. No need for you or anyone else to say what the the sources say. They speak for themselves. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But here, that sort of claim is just asking us to take it at face value (and not verify). Thanks for the confirmation. TP ✎ ✓ 04:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is not. It is not asking you to do anything. The sources can be looked up manually by yourself or anyone else. Just like the editors told you at the citing sources talk [20]. I always look up sources from Wikipedia manually so I don't see how it is an issue for anyone. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This very thread demonstrates that it is an issue for many more than myself... so, it's just a case of mass delusion, then.
    A claim-source verification like the one ArtifexMayhem did over a year ago would not affect the article in the least, and if it turns out to be but a huge waste of time, so much the better! I can't see how there can be any rational objection to this, and the fact that there is one, again, speaks pretty well for itself. TP ✎ ✓ 04:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. His analysis did not provide quotations - it was his commentary all the way. Should we take his word for it? It was a blind analysis + the section was badly written and no clear consensus was reached too. The quotes I extracted at least make the sources content visible to everyone, not invisible. Why would you try to hide what the sources actually say? That defeats the purpose of verifying what the sources actually say. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, more 'justtakemywordforit'-ism (that, here, speaks for itself)... but, as you said, people can verify for themselves. You're just poisoning the discussion at this point. TP ✎ ✓ 05:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • At present I am persuaded that a source-by-source examination is a way to go, and Alexbrn suggests more direct measures, but neither approach resolves the issues around the scope of the article: world history seen through an 'atheistic' lens is indeed a concept practically inexistent in historical consensus (thus absent from mainstream, reliable sources), but it does demonstrably exist in mostly-sectarian sources (as the article's few sources that actually use the term 'State atheism' already demonstrates): IMHO, this article's prime fault is its trying present this WP:FRINGE view as 'common knowlege' without any mention of the origins and authorship of the 'State atheism' term-topic-concept-designation; including this information would change the scope of the article to a more neutral, less WP:FRINGE one, and do a lot to repair the article's other issues as well. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 10:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why the sources and quotations are already available for all to see. No is opposing looking at the sources - many editors have already looked at them and no one has complained. The problem is that your approach does not result in your conclusions (I myself have looked at many sources and have extracted quotes and they check out). You already made the exact same arguments in the RFC [21], the talk page multiple times over, and even on the WP:NOR noticeboard [22] over the exact same issue with numerous editors looking over your claims and arguments. No one agrees with you. no point in you WP Please stop repeating yourself and let other editors contribute, if they even care.
    On the other hand the you endorsements of clear cut WP:FRINGE articles like the unsourced, WP:OR, WP:SYN dumb article Atheist Atrocities fallacy show that you have a double standard. Why you never made an equal effort on complain about that article [23] shows your double standards.
    The solution is already there. The numerous quotations already expose what the sources say and editors can see that there is clear discussion of the topic in them - which is why no else has complained. In particular the WP:NOR noticeboard [24] discussion emphasized that when you made the exact same points. Take their recommendation and move on. Your WP:FORUMSHOPPING is getting old. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no right to try to censor anyone [25] and [26] and I think that others can see that you are trying to control the dialogue and ignoring what others have said. This is an open discussion, not a one sided one and the fact that you have already gone through and RFC, numerous talk page discussions, the WP:NOR noticboard over the exact same issue with the exact same arguments is relevant to the discussion. Plus I already addressed your concerns. There is no sabotaging when you keep on repeating your problem and I keep on summarizing the solutions that I an others have already addressed. Let others speak - people already know your position and mine. Step aside. If you stop repeating the problem, I will stop repeating the solutions already mentioned by me and other editors. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already been told twice that your persistant ad hominems are off-topic here, and at this point they are beyond disruptive. TP ✎ ✓ 14:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to say I don't get what problem there actually is. There is a great deal of editing of late, and an even great deal of talk page Wall Of Text chatter which doesn't seem to have enough substance to turn off my TL;DR defenses. If there is anything that might be relevant to this noticeboard, it's the faint odor of denialism that surrounds the notion that the article shouldn't be talking about the repression, destruction, and slaughter the various communist governments did in the cause of state atheism. Other than that the whole thing comes across as a WP:OWNERSHIP battle. I don't see anything grossly wrong with the article, and for all the yammering nobody seems to be able to spell out succinctly or at least clearly what the problem is with the article. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The entire point of the off-topic 'yammering' was likely to make this thread tl;dr (thus dissuade attention and interest - a tactic that seems to 'work', otherwise...)
    And yes, the article 'seems okay' at first glance, but that's exactly the problem: it doesn't stand to testing, as others have noted, here (namely, the contributor who opened this thread), and the author of the post that probably inspired that. An earlier claim-by-claim examination of a section of the article gives a pretty good idea of what's going on in much of the rest of it. Thanks. TP ✎ ✓ 16:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangoe you got it. Pretty much he is arguing that State Atheism is a conspiracy theory by religious apologists and denies that such a thing exists and that sources do not talk of such a thing - so it is all a conspiracy. I verified many sources in the article myself and extracted quotes for all to see and I came to a different conclusion. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This is what I was answering before the above was changed:

    The article has extensive quotes available for anyone to see now since I verified many of the sources myself in the article and I extracted them, unlike what ThePromenader mentioned (opinions but no quotes for others to verify). Quotes from sources always solve these kinds of issues since the sources speak for themselves. Transparency is important.

    So, why the deluge of desperate disruptions? And all I've done thus far is to propose a verification of topic-claims to sources (as others have before (<---- and pssst, that's a reference to verified quotes and sources, not 'opinion')) ... which is exactly what the comment above asks for, right? So I don't really see what all the panic is about. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 21:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh by disruption you mean not agreeing with you? You keep on ignoring that I have verified many sources and extracted quotes myself there. The blind analysis you keep on mentioning had no quotes from any of the sources so how is that trustworthy of anything? It is an opinion. With quotes exposed in the article now, everyone can see what the sources say. Are you trying to hide what the sources say? Anyways, please continue with your conspiracy theory of how the whole article is a conspiracy theory by religious apologists - even though I do not see any of those in the article. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And thanks for the additional misrepresentation: I do not deny that the 'State atheism' concept exists, I just point out that it can't be presented as 'common knowledge' as it is in the article. And if it were such common knowledge, the term would be present in mainstream, reliable sources - it isn't - as well as in the article sources themselves - it is, but barely, tailored and rarely - but, again, all this can be verified, right? Cheers again. TP ✎ ✓ 21:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Holey Moley, we're actually back on topic again. TP ✎ ✓ 21:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool so the article is not fringe. I will let others comment on your understanding of this. Clearly quotes from reliable sources such as academic books, journals, news sources, etc. are not enough for you. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wherever did I say that? I don't know what more I can add, though, but to close with my proposition to verify the article's topic-claims to its sources. Normally there should be no rational reason to object to this (a verification would demonstrate that all this 'conspiracy' really is all 'bunk', right?), but obviously there is... so go figure, I guess. TP ✎ ✓ 21:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no objection to verifying sources. I was able to do it and so can you. You can look them up yourself like I did and it is why I have extracted quotes for all people to see and judge. They can look the sources up and expand the quotes if they like. That gives more transparency than your obscure weird no-quotes-from-the-sources opinion pieces by some random wiki editor you keep on suggesting. Why would you want to hide what the sources say? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no objection to verifying sources.

    No objections, then. So we can proceed with a topic-claim-source verification. Great! TP ✎ ✓ 22:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There never was an objection to verify sources, but you cannot constantly claim denial of what the sources say or make your own interpretation of them. Quotes settle the matter, not Wikipedia editor opinions of a source. Any review by you would not really be reliable or useful because of your belief in the article being a big conspiracy theory. No one has also agreed with you on the RFC, the multiple talk page discussions, and the WP:NOR noticeboard because you have a questionable bias and are unable to be objective with the sources. So you are not really in a position to address such issues. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But an inquiry would debunk said (inexistant) 'conspiracy theory' accusation.
    So basically what you want is for people to just take your word for it, here, that 'all checks out' (and that the contributors who led to/opened this thread are just hallucinating), without any actual demonstrable, testable verification or inquiry.
    I really, really rest my case. TP ✎ ✓ 23:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made an inquiry myself - all I did was look to see if the sources made the claim and found the corresponding quotes easily and posted them. My verification was public and open. The proof is in the quotes I was able to get from the page numbers and references that were already there before me. I was honest and transparent with everyone. No editor has ever objected to any of them so no issues have been encountered. I am clean on the matter. On the other hand, you have done damage to your reputation since you have had multiple objections and no consensus favoring you in the RFC you yourself made, multiple article talk page discussions, and the WP:NOR noticeboard you yourself made. Now it looks like there is disagreement with your denialism here too. So you have not proven to be an honest and good faith editor on this matter. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a faith-based initiative, so just 'declaring' things in its pages doesn't give them validity or make them true. And if all you stated about the article were true, you would be encouraging an inquiry, not trying to ad hominem distract from, tl;dr bloat, poison and disrupt one. TP ✎ ✓ 01:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Comparing demonization of CO2 with "Jews under Hitler"

    There is a RfC on the William Happer page about whether his remarks that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler" belongs in the lede.[27] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Aquatic ape hypothesis

    Here's a perennial topic, about which work is often postponed, but I would be grateful if more people could audit my changes at this article. Without it, my impression was that of undue fringe promotion. There's only one other person at the talk page (who contested my edit and may also have valid points). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: my particular edit and source did not stand, but there were obvious improvements, thanks to Alexbrn. —PaleoNeonate – 22:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And Jim Moore got to do a short jig on her grave, anticipating the claim made ten years later and added for "balance" (because it is pseudoscience, and she was a pseudo-scientist, according to … erm, the Vulcan Science Council?). cygnis insignis 15:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My source from Moore wasn't preserved. —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it was a "short jig" :-) Was it copied from the another article? cygnis insignis 18:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fish Physiology

    Hi all,

    I'm pretty new so please excuse me if I do anything incorrectly! Two months ago I removed a reference to a study into the effects of atrazine in frogs, from the page on fish physiology. Shortly afterwards my edit was reverted, and a message left on my talk page advising that it shouldn't be removed because I hadn't provided evidence via citations. I can understand why it was reverted as the reason I gave was a bit ambiguous; I should have clearly explained that another reason for removal was that the study in question didn't involve fish or their physiology. I originally gave my reason for removal as relating to the poor quality of the study itself (controversy over the results and lack of data, lack of replication) and the fact that the findings aren't accepted in mainstream science (primarily as the researcher apparently won't release his data, protocols etc.).

    The section in question was changed when my edit was reverted, and I'm happier with the new wording. But not completely happy - the new version really doesn't strike me as NPOV, plus it still uses the frog study as a citation (#28).

    Could I please ask for some assistance on whether anything needs doing re. the "Effects of pollution" section of this article?

    You can see the original comment left on my talk page if you'd like some background. Also, as explained on my talk page I have no COI, which the other editor seems to have concluded when first contacting me.

    The truth is that I genuinely have no idea whether atrazine causes problems for any form of life, which ones are affected, how, why, dose/response, etc.

    However, I don't think that weak studies that remain unaccepted by the scientific community in general should be used as evidence.

    Plus frogs aren't fish.

    For anyone who's interested, I've linked to an article on the study and scientist in question. You could possibly argue that this article isn't 100% NPOV (maybe the journalists don't like each other?), nevertheless there is a lot of interesting info and background provided here: [1]

    Thanks in advance for any help you can give! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/03/10/did-the-new-yorker-botch-puff-piece-on-frog-scientist-tyrone-hayes-turning-rogue-into-beleaguered-hero/amp/

    DNA teleportation

    DNA teleportation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Looks like a pretty standard woo article; came across it after seeing it come up here. Look at the opening paragraph of the old revision for what was there for the past month. The reverted edit mentions an additional study which the article should probably mention, but I'm not sure how best to do that. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=901023595"