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 Knuteson (talk | contribs) at 14:30, 4 November 2019 (Skeptical Inquirer citation). 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


    Did you know

    Categories for discussion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Articles for creation


    DISC assessment

    DISC assessment seems to be based on a number of questionable and irrelevant sources. I suspect that this page has been amped up because one of the companies used as a source is actually a vendor of a software product based on this obsolete theory in psychology. --Salimfadhley (talk)

    Peter Fenwick (neuropsychologist)

    Article takes the stance that Blackmore's reasoning is wrong, because someone disagrees with it. Should it? Does anybody here know more about this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Original research and undue. I have removed it. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Y-S.Ko

    I have asked this editor to stop their mass changes until I could get advice here. Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Pseudoscience is confusing, because diverse topics characterized as pseudoscience (i.e. Alternative medicine), concepts related to pseudoscience (i.e. Charlatan), explanation about pseudoscience (i.e. History of pseudoscience) are mixed. There is also an advice "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." in the article Category:Pseudoscience. I just followed this advice.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you've created a new category called "Topics characterized as pseudoscience" and are in the process of moving things from the existing Pseudoscience category into that new category?
    I don't think that's the right thing to do.
    "Moved to subcategories where possible" is not the same as "create a new catch-all subcategory". It means that if there are a few items that can be grouped into an existing subcategory, that should be done. For instance, if an article is about an aspect of "parapsychology", it should be moved into that relevant subcategory. That way related articles are grouped together in an organized way.
    Creating a new catch-all subcategory just for the sake of doing so doesn't improve the organization of the category, it just adds extra complexity. ApLundell (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Category:Topics characterized as pseudoscience is maybe better "catch-all" category than Category:Pseudoscience, because it can exclude articles such as History of pseudoscience, include only the real cases characeterized as pseudoscience.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad idea to have a wordy, indirect category like this. Categories apply to subjects (e.g. homeopathy) not to the abstraction we editors call our "topic" of homeopathy. It should be deleted and these edits reverted. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. A category that catches 90% of the parent category isn't a good idea, we should revert the edits. --mfb (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I think Category:Pseudoscience is confusing, because diverse topics characterized as pseudoscience (i.e. Alternative medicine), concepts related to pseudoscience (i.e. Charlatan), explanation about pseudoscience (i.e. History of pseudoscience) are mixed.
    2. Alexbrn wrote, "Categories apply to subjects (e.g. homeopathy) not to the abstraction we editors call our "topic"...", but there are many categories such as Category:Topics in the arts, Category:Programming language topics, Category:Factorial and binomial topics. Therefore, I don't think Alexbrn's position is not a norm of Wikipeida.
    3. Homeopathy itself is one of "subjects" included in the category "topics characterized as pseudoscience".
    4. Is "topics characterized as pseudoscience" just "abstruction"? There is an article named "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience". If "abstraction we editors call our "topic"" can make list, why not categories? (By the way, I chose the name "topics characterized as pseduoscience", because of consistency in article titles. There is "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience".)--Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue (for me) is it looks forky. Your using weasel words "characterized" that may be seen as trying to imply its in doubt they are.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If "characterized" is only weasel word, then why are there the article whose main name is "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" rather than "List of pseudoscientific theories"? (Personally, I think Category:Pseudoscientific theories is okay. I chose the name "topics characterized as pseduoscience", because of consistency in article titles.)--Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are particular reasons for that article's title (see the Talk page history). Those are not relevant to the category name. Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it was (and that would require at the very least an RfC), you moved quite a number of unambiguous pseudosciences (e.g. autism pseudoscience, free energy conspiracy theories, phrenology, quantum mysticism). That last gives me pause: the Chopra cult are attacking Jimmy on Twitter right now because we don't reflect the world as they wish it to be. Guy (help!) 09:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" is a legal threat. Besides, it makes very clear that Richard Gale, Gary Null and presumably Chopra are fighters against the pharmaceutical industry and are peddlers of Ayurveda and TCM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a problem: "Category:Pseudoscience is confusing, because diverse topics characterized as pseudoscience (i.e. Alternative medicine), concepts related to pseudoscience (i.e. Charlatan), explanation about pseudoscience (i.e. History of pseudoscience) are mixed." What is better solution than making a subcategory, to solve this problem?--Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly it's now time for your edits to be reverted. You appear to be the only one who believes there is a problem. Are you going to do it, or should somebody do it for you? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Then, I accept revert, because majority's opinion is like this.
    2. My edits are already reverted.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Exception: In case of Psychoanalysis, my edit is not reverted.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Was too.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you request deletion of Category:Topics characterized as pseudoscience‎ it can be speedy deleted, if someone else does so it will take a week via a full deletion discussion. --mfb (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bacopa monnieri

    Dietary supplement marketed as a supposed "nootropic" and as a treatment for Alzheimer's (attracting the ire of the FDA). Got some disagreement over categorization which could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes indeed, Bacopa is well known to be a nootropic. And because some people/firms have made false claims does not make the whole plant a fraud and does not justify this categorization. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Source? Just because something is claimed to be a nootropic, doesn't mean it is. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this one: Neuropharmacological Review of the Nootropic Herb Bacopa monnieri
    Or you just might google for it. Want more? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read that 'source' It doesn't say what you claim it does. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It says that Bacopa is a nootropic and that is does have health effects. So it DOES say everything I said. Or do you mean something else? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, that might do in light of the fact Nootropics are defined (at least by WP) as drugs wich "may improve cognitive function". The Health Fraud category is apt however and the IP (sock?) is edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and the IP (sock?) is edit-warring. I am not and I was not, but even if I would this is not the place to mention it unless you want to bash and belittel me. And why calling me a sock? What did I do to you to deserve this? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is a violation of policy, so is relevant (and yes you were engaged in it). Editors with accounts sometime edit logged-out (as an IP) as a way of WP:SOCKing to evade being identified. I suspected that may be the case here, since this topic has attracted controversy. If not, I apologise for impugning the no doubt good reputation of your IP address. Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology accepted. I know the problem with the socks myself, nevertheless. Sorry if I warred, that was not my intention. WP is not the only thing I currently have on my screen. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Time to let others chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the sources (listed here) supposedly supporting bacopa as a nootropic provides sufficient evidence of cognitive effects in humans, and all are 5 or more years out of date, WP:MEDDATE, based on weak animal research and inconclusive human studies with small (invalidating) subject numbers and dubious designs (refs 7-9). "Bacopa as a nootropic" is a fringe theory about actual human brain effects yet to be shown in any rigorous way – a status many years from succeeding through the formal drug approval process that the FDA has under scrutiny in 2019 with public warnings about bacopa included among other health fraud scams (refs 2-4). --Zefr (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that is just false. Bacopa is an internationally well known nootropic, and even in older links in the article it is called so. Please do your homework first. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, why did you rev all me edits about the species and where it grows? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Three WP:MEDRS reviews[1][2][3] find that bacopa improves cognition in healthy people. Of the three sources used to "refute" this claim, one says that the herb is untested for Alzheimer's[4] (true, but irrelevant). The second[5] is an FDA warning letter against a manufacturer who has made the unproved health claims that bacopa is "used to treat stomach disorders”, “to…stave off illnesses such as Alzheimer’s”, “…helps in protecting infants against neonatal hypoglycemia also known as low sugar”, “…reduces the risk of hypoglycemia in infants”, and is “…used to control blood pressure”. It is also irrelevant. The third[6] is an FDA warning letter to a manufacturer who has claimed that “…Bacopa Monnieri is a natural … anti-anxiety aid.” It is also irrelevant. No sources exist to refute the reviews. The herb has also been shown to increase the brain's production of serotonin and acetylcholine-- two neurotransmitters important for memory formation. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Kongkeaw, Chuenjid; Dilokthornsakul, Piyameth; Thanarangsarit, Phurit; Limpeanchob, Nanteetip; Norman Scholfield, C. (2014). "Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on cognitive effects of Bacopa monnieri extract". Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 151 (1): 528–535. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2013.11.008. ISSN 1872-7573. PMID 24252493.
    2. ^ Neale, Chris; Camfield, David; Reay, Jonathon; Stough, Con; Scholey, Andrew (2013-3). "Cognitive effects of two nutraceuticals Ginseng and Bacopa benchmarked against modafinil: a review and comparison of effect sizes". British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 75 (3): 728–737. doi:10.1111/bcp.12002. ISSN 1365-2125. PMC 3575939. PMID 23043278. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    3. ^ Aguiar, Sebastian; Borowski, Thomas (2013-8). "Neuropharmacological review of the nootropic herb Bacopa monnieri". Rejuvenation Research. 16 (4): 313–326. doi:10.1089/rej.2013.1431. ISSN 1557-8577. PMC 3746283. PMID 23772955. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    4. ^ Affairs, Office of Regulatory (2019-09-04). "Unproven Alzheimer's Disease Products". FDA.
    5. ^ Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied (2019-05-23). "Peak Nootropics LLC aka Advanced Nootropics - 557887 - 02/05/2019". Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Retrieved 2019-10-15.
    6. ^ Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied (2019-05-23). "TEK Naturals - 565026 - 02/05/2019". Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Retrieved 2019-10-15.

    In assessing sources for medical content, competence in critiquing published reviews is required: WP:CIR which states: "Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." Accepting refs 1-3 above as reliable MEDRS sources is plain gullibility and inability to see the studies included in the reviews as poor science unpublishable in rigorous journals. --Zefr (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In assessing sources for medical content, competence in critiquing published sources is required: WP:CIR which states: "Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." Accepting refs 4-6 above as reliable MEDRS sources is plain gullibility and inability to see that they do not address the disputed content. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment refactoring

    Please take this to ANI, I think there is a two way issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have enough upcoming issues at ANI already, and this article is part of it (which is the only reason I have bothered to participate in this discussion). Good suggestion, but I'd rather just do it all at once. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard", Wikipedia, 2019-10-15, retrieved 2019-10-15
    2. ^ "Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard", Wikipedia, 2019-10-15, retrieved 2019-10-15

    Conspiracy theory

    Edit warring to add personal commentary to the lead, watering down mainstream viewpoints, redefining Occam's Razor, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at AN3 - link is here. Sunrise (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Langan

    Christopher Langan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I am trying to delicately write about this person who has been concerned with Wikipedia's treatment of him for more than a decade. In particular, he is famous for claims of a very high IQ which, of course, is something that is notoriously hard to verify because tails of the distribution and so-on. How we explain this in plain NPOV language seems to be hard to figure out [2]. Help doing so would be appreciated.

    jps (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Help! [3] jps (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bastyr University

    Some dispute about the intersection of WP:BLP and this article's content (see also section at WP:BLP/N#Bastyr University). I think there are WP:FRINGE issues here which need careful handling ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I need help from the fringe theories noticeboard community

    Because of some ongoing health issues, I have been forced to limit how much time I spend editing Wikipedia. One of my essays (WP:YWAB is becoming popular, so I am asking for help in fixing obvious problems in some of the pages that essay links to. In particular, I would ask for help improving:

    So that they no longer need cleanup templates at the top.

    Any help with these or any other pages I link to in my essay would be very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia

    I was reading the The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia article, and it struck me as promoting potentially fringe ideas. I don't know very much about the subject, so I came here to ask what other people think of the article? Thanks, Darthkayak (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone working on this page should also make sure that our articles on Air America (airline) and Allegations of CIA drug trafficking accurately convey what the sources say.
    I just removed a WP:CIRCULAR claim (The Enonomist used Wikipedia as a source. Can someone with access to the paywalled site please replace "The New York Times also reviewed the book"b with some actual content showing what the NYT said about it?
    The topic of the US government dealing in drugs is a combination of some "they purposely brought drugs into the hood to kill off the blacks" conspiracy theories and some legitimate journalism documenting how the portions of the US government have at various times decided that the War On Drugs is far less important than Deciding Who The Leaders Of Other Counrties is. (Interfering with the elections of another country is only bad when someone else does it.) We need to take care to keep the legitimate journalism and keep out the conspiracy theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Annular Theory (Vailan Theory)

    Annular Theory (Vailan Theory) is currently a PROD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sign me up for the Annular World Association in Azusa, CA.[4][5] Highly praised by the Fortean Society.[6] See also International Fortean Organization. --mikeu talk 15:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Database of 18,000 Retracted Scientific Papers Now Online

    "Retraction Watch Database is designed expressly for finding out whether any given study is still legit. The next time you read an article or hear someone say, "studies show that talking is bad for you," you can head over to the site and see what's what."

    --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    William Lane Craig has calmed down

    William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    After a heated few months, it looks like the interlocutors arguing about this article have settled down or burnt out. Our mediator had some health problems and seems to be waiting for some considerations of how to move forward. Perhaps this is a good time to ask you all for feedback. So far, we've worked on the infobox, lede, and the sections of the article down to "Molinism". There is still work to be done, but a lot of the concerns about this article may have been addressed, if perhaps badly. Input or help moving forward Talk:William Lane Craig/Mediation would be very welcome.

    jps (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Great replacement: move discussion on use of "conspiracy theory" in the title

    There is an ongoing move discussion regarding whether to move Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory. The discussion currently only has 4 participants, and has been relisted. Additional input would be helpful. Nblund talk 16:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not the biggest problem in the world, but we could use some input

    See Talk:Intelligent design#Orange box overkill? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Solve this problem by awarding ten year veteran editors a "scroll past the yellow vomit" button. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    War against Islam conspiracy theory

    Is it just me or is there something wrong with this article? Doug Weller talk 08:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly do you mean? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    @Xxanthippe: much if not most of it doesn't seem based on sources talking about a conspiracy theory but about the "English-language political neologism of "War on Islam" which the article says was only popularized as a conspiracy theory after 2001 - although the source, pp. 559 and 560 of this book[7] seems to be referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories.[8] Doug Weller talk 15:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Many people use phrases like war against boys, war against christmas, war against emus, war against baking soda, war against the homeless, war against meat, war against nature, war against pyrex, war against vaccines, war against zebra mussels, etc. You need multiple high quality sources calling something a "war on" and calling it a conspiracy theory. There really was a Emu War, and Pyrex is just an example of someone making a cheaper product than they used to.[9] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it seems like the title of this article is a neologism. What Guy Macon is referring to are mostly hyperboles, and most of those I never heard of. There is also a "this compares to that, so it is OK". Someone needs to see if the sources significantly cover the topic, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article only uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" twice, both times in the lead, neither has a proper source. I also looked at Conspiracy theories in the Arab world which says " Variants include conspiracies involving colonialism, Zionism, superpowers, oil, and the war on terrorism, which may be referred to as a War against Islam.[1]" I can't find "War on Islam" in the source although it does mention "war on terrorism".[10] I think what we have here is a lot of original research and a lot of assumptions. AfD? Doug Weller talk 17:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Steve Quinn has asked me to post the following as he is travelling without convenient access to Wikipedia: "Over at the Fringe noticeboard - "War against Islam conspiracy theory" - I'm glad you discovered this. A mish-mash like this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. However, I have not had the opportunity to review the sources myself. The reason I would do that is to see if anything is salvageable. I will endeavor to do that with the next 24 hours. Just reading your last post, 17:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC), I concur with AfD. I'm sure your assessment is accurate. I will have plenty of time to review the sources during the 7 to 14 day AfD discussion period." Doug Weller talk 09:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War against Islam conspiracy theory

    Pyramid power, Russian research and Alexander Golod

    There's an editing dispute at the article Pyramid power involving User:Elspru, User:Roxy the dog and myself over Russian research supposedly proving pyramid power. Looking into this I ran into Alexander Golod whose article is all about his work on pyramid power> Doug Weller talk 15:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m not certain, but I think I’m up to three reverts, and was coming here anyway. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't say it proving, I said there is scientific research in favour of it. and linked the references Elspru (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    there was false statement on page saying there was no such research, I corrected this error by linking the research. Just because the researchers are Russian does not mean their published scientific research is not valid.

    I did not link any Alexander Holed you can if you like. Elspru (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Alekbrn so you denigrate minorities and deny the evidence? This is Science not reneissance philosophy. Science is based on Scientific Method. You are in denial if you are attacking me with baseless labels. Elspru (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    May be the references should be blacklisted. The book is self-published, but the journal is real, and if it really publishes such bullshit we really need to blacklist it as a source.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discretionary sanctions alert posted.[11] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And this editor's personal attacks don't let up, even after a final warning. Take a look at [12] - the abstract says "It was established that the dynamics of volatile compounds from samples placed inside chambers is affected by the shape of the chambers. The mechanisms of this effect were analyzed. It was shown that the experimental results obtained previously are consistent with the theory. It was also shown that all phenomena observed in constructions of various shapes are described in terms of the known physical conceptions. Chambers with outside pulsating heating are variations of the known "Brown motor devices"." What are "brown motor devices"? I can't find any mention of them outside the article. And it's not clear that this has anything to do with pyramid power. It might be, I don't know, but in any case the paper has no citations. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter I don't understand how proposing to blacklist a Russian Biophysics journal is anything other than pure racism. The results of the Scientific Method have no regard for your personal belief system, so while you may not accept some result, that just indicates you are in a state of denial, and has no bearing on the actual results. Elspru (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller, the reference is to Brownian motion, "brown motor" is a mistranslation. The brownian motion is modified by the form of the geometric container. There is nothing mysterious about it. Elspru (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a while since we've had much really good batshit insanity. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reported this editor to ANI for their continued personal attacks. I do agree that there's nothing mysterious about brownian motion being modified by the shape of the container, that's just not pyramid power though. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just n oting that the editor was blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Budwig diet

    Biochemist who later became famous for a supposed "anti-cancer" diet. Article appears to be under attack from a mini sock farm. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've checked the debate and the article history. It's meatpuppets, looks to me like an enforcement issue. Heptor (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Astrology

    Requesting input at Astrology (talk discussion here). The issue under dispute is whether the article should be in Category:Pseudoscience. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Two promotional Theosophy articles up for deletion

    Other problematic articles created by the same user SERGEJ2011

    I could list twenty more, but I will stop there. This is also a long-term abuse issue. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • If nothing else, these articles need the attention of a good copy editor. The writing is quite clunky and at times hard to follow. Are these perhaps translations of articles taken from non-English Wikipedias? Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent find! The user SERGEJ2011 states on their userpage they are "interested in Theosophy" and has a quote from Blavatsky, the founder of the type of Theosophy being discussed/promoted in these articles. The pages you list above say on their talk pages they are translated from Russian Wikipedia articles, which have also been authored by SERGEJ2011 and many of which are up for deletion there.
    SERGEJ2011 has a near-singular focus on the topic of Theosophy ([13][14] and data therein). As an example of these articles, Theosophy and visual arts has a whopping 98.9% authorship by SERGEJ2011. [15] The religion in question appears to be very small as seen by Theosophy (Blavatskian)#Demographics.
    I haven't thoroughly examined the articles, but from what I can tell so far, it appears likely that they consist of whatever little material on theosophy could be cobbled together from reliable sources, along with lots of sources from the religion itself.
    Although these articles have a veneer of scholarship, it appears very likely that these articles exist to promote this religion, and that they contain, or by their very existence are, WP:UNDUE weight on the ideas of this tiny group. There does seem to be at least some original research (which is absolutely not allowed) as well. Given all this, I would not at all be surprised if most or all of the articles listed above qualified for deletion on TNT, GNG, and/or UNDUE grounds.
    I do know this has happened before where a single minded user creates a bad article on a favored topic, or a web of them, that has a veneer of being well-sourced but is actually no good. (Some examples: [16][17][18]) So, I hope that while the spotlight is turned on this matter, we can examine and remedy it however is appropriate. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you check the archives, issues have been raised about this editor before, several times. Yet nothing is ever done about it. He creates about 6 of these Theosophy articles every year, sometimes more. An admin needs to look at this. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Theosophy and literature, this article reads as spam to me, it is like a promotional list and most of the references are not reliable. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Annular Theory (Vailan Theory)

    De-prod'ed by the page creator without explanation. I suspect that it is not a wiki-notable fringe theory, as fringe theories go. XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dhul-Qarnayn

    We've discussed Dhul-Qarnayn before. I'm hoping that some people here are familiar with it, because User:Aminamin1 is changing it radically. Despite my warnings they are adding material to sourced text that doesn't seem to be in the text, adding unsourced material with pov language, etc. I've reverted them before and may again when I finish this, but they don't seem to care. Here's the diff since they started - take a look at what happened to the reference {{sfn|Wheeler|2013|p=16}} - it now is attached to completely different text and the original text it sourced has been deleted. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Now there's a second editor adding unsourced. The first editor tells me he's translating from the Persisn version of the article. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Quackwatch apparently not a reliable source for living people?

    Quackwatch has been removed from this article List of food faddists. See talk-page. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bilby keeps doing that, why? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:RSP, Quackwatch is self published. According to WP:BLPSPS, we should "never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person". Quackwatch is fine for attributed criticism, as Barrett is a respected expert, and it is very good for criticising psuedoscientific medical claims, per WP:PARITY - we're just limited in how we use to to make factual claims about a living person. So what I've been doing is replacing the self-published Quackwatch sources used for living people with non-self published sources, [19], [20], [21], if at all possible, so we can be compliant with BLP. - Bilby (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And according to dozens of prior debates here, it is a reliable source for discussion of quacks and quackery. Your determination to be fair to charlatans as always does you credit, but as so often you err too far on the side of deference to them. Guy (help!) 08:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not removing the names - just looking for a source that meets BLP. And I do think Quackwatch is reliable, just that it needs to be used with caution in regard to factual claims about a person, as opposed to attibuted critcism of people and their ideas. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's time that they are taken to task for disruption. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For following BLP? We went through this issue a year ago - which took a strong stance about the use of self published sources in fringe BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a topic ban on fringe would do the trick. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ISTR we had all this drama before on the basis that Science-Based Medicine was apparently an SPS. It isn't.[22] And neither is QuackWatch. In light of the linked RfC's result, such removals would seem problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SBM isn't self published, so I don't have any particular issue with using it on that basis. When I ask supporters they say that Quackwatch is not self published, detractors say that it is. So I'm going by WP:RSP as a neutral source, which describes it as:
    Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding describes Quackwatch as a "partisan site". As it is a tertiary source, it may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered.
    I'm ok with using it where attributed, which is what happens most of the time, and in most cases it is fine. But in a list of "People who are x" we can't attribute it individually to Barrett, so a different source is prefered. - Bilby (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have an issue with a source take it to RSN, but yes he is correct BLP forbids SPS,. We really do have to apply policy to everyone.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but is Quackwatch an WP:SPS? It is a network of people, has an advisory board, a legal team, and issues corrections and updates. If Science-Based Medicine is not SPS, what is it about Quackwatch that's different that makes it one? Alexbrn (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So lets see a case for its an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CRYBLP. The goal of BLP protections is to make sure that poorly sourced material is not added to articles. Making a determination that a particular source is poor or, in this case, an WP:SPS is an editorial decision like any other. In this case, it seems clear that the consensus is that QW is not such a source, so there is no problem using it. I take a very dim view of people who WP:CRYBLP to hide their editorial bent. jps (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm absolutely ok with using Quackwatch in this way if the community consensus is that it is not an SPS. But at the moment, the consensus as expressed on WP:RSP is that it is. - Bilby (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    perhaps a block? Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:blp is a policy, cry BLP is not and so does not trump it. Now if QW is not an SPS the question has been addressed, but lets not just ignore policy when it suits us.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the information at WP:RSP is accurate than Bilby actually has a point. I'm no fan of quacks, but we do have to address how we treat BLPs impartially. Suggest it might be worth going to WP:BLP/N for a clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    RSN might be better, as this hinges on is it an SPS, but certainly there are issues here that need addressing sensibly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, regardless, it's premature to be calling for any disciplinary action. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wholly agree, the OP is based upon policy, it needs clarification before you jump to sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have raised this issue over at the BLP/N [23] 81.147.137.6 (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Old Testament

    See Talk:Old Testament#Dogmatic stance. Please chime in. IMHO, the sources I have offered are impeccable. For the record, I was accused of WP:FRINGE for saying that "covenant=contract". My sources are:

    and presumably (I did not check it):

    From the titles, at least three of those books seem to be introductory works for lay people. That doesn't invalidate them at all, but it makes them less of an authority than academic works for academics, especially on fine semantic details like the one you're debating. ApLundell (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not even claim that they represent WP:RS/AC or majority view. I'd simply settle for "not fringe". WP:RULES say WP:PRESERVE, so the WP:ONUS is upon those who want to say "covenant isn't contract". I found a source for WP:ENEMY: Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi, eds. (17 October 2014). The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition. Oxford University Press. p. PT194. ISBN 978-0-19-939387-9. I.e. it is me who will introduce the source to the article.


    • Berman, Joshua A. (Summer 2006). "God's Alliance with Man". Azure: Ideas for the Jewish Nation (25). ISSN 0793-6664. Retrieved 31 October 2019. At this juncture, however, God is entering into a "treaty" with the Israelites, and hence the formal need within the written contract for the grace of the sovereign to be documented.30 30. Mendenhall and Herion, "Covenant," p. 1183.
    So, this WP:VERifies the claim that Herion said "contract". Adding another source:
    Now the WP:RS are just too many and from scholars of such reputation that it is ludicrous to accuse me of WP:PROFRINGE. Count this WP:RS too:
    Not sure why the discussion was moved from the article to here, but in all my years of study it has been made clear that a covenant is not a contract. No sources. No interest in discussing here either. I have alerted an appropriate project about the discussion and pointed it to the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Tgeorgescu, you were the first one to throw around accusations of WP:FRINGE.
    You started by claiming that your version was so widely supported that any academic papers that contradicted it were Fringe.
    Now you will "settle for" an acknowledgement that your own version isn't fringe.
    I think it's clear that this is an ordinary content dispute, and FRINGE is just being tossed around as a hyperbole. This doesn't belong here. ApLundell (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this does belong here. There are some claims that certain Hebrew words in the Old Testament mean something different than, for example, what the dictionary identifies them to be. It seems that this argument is being motivated by people who think that ideological should be weighted an equal or even greater amount than academic treatments. This is a hallmark of fringe POV-pushing. jps (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Holy Quran and Science Conference

    Declined prod; seems not wiki-notable (and having a conference be notable is an uphill task to start with, I'd say). People who have experience in religion/science overlap material might want to weigh in. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Philosophy of conspiracy theories

    Appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Conspiracy theory that gives primary weight to opinions that express the idea that conspiracy theories shouldn't be denigrated because, philosphically speaking, it's possible some are not unwarranted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it ... interesting ... that a brand new editor would be able to create a properly formatted article after 5 days and ten edits. The rest of his posting history ( Knuteson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is also ... interesting. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly are you implying? Knuteson (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am implying that, while I don't know for sure, the WP:DUCK test says that you are not a new user who started 22 days ago and has made 38 edits. Please note that there is no rule that says that you can't create a new identity: see WP:FRESHSTART. That being said, you are editing in areas where a lot of people get blocked for behaving badly, and if you are one of them you are not allowed to edit under another identity. See WP:BLOCKEVASION. You are also not allowed to keep editing under the old identity and pretend that the posts are from different users. See WP:SOCK --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take what Guy said a step further: So far, you have edited in only one topic area, and within that topic area your edits appear to be pushing an agenda (we have a term for this: a “single purpose account”). I am not saying that you are intentionally doing so, but it is how your editing pattern can appear to others. If this isn’t the reputation you want, I would suggest that you step away from editing articles related to conspiracy theory for a while. I am sure you have other interests. Work on articles in those other topic areas. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    New users writing a new article with properly formatted reference tags and citation templates in their first 15 edits are extremely rare, too. Most of them "happen to" appear in topics where bans are common. --mfb (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Now that we have something explicit, I can address it directly. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor. Other than toying with it about twice years ago, without a registered name, I really am very new to this. As for the single purpose, I don't want to edit pages that I don't know much about, and which I don't have an interest in. It did seem to me that the philosophical literature on conspiracy theories was being left out, and since I've already done the reading, I decided it would be good to add a page on that topic, and also to help fix some problems with the conspiracy theory page, which I'm able to recognize given the reading that I've done. I've made every effort to follow the rules and play nicely with others, despite opposition that often appears to me to be relatively uniformed. Knuteson (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets assume a little bit of good faith here everybody. If you have compelling evidence then take it to WP:SPI. Concerns have been raised, and this should be a satisfactory response. New editors are not forbidden from having a clue, and they're not forbidden from having an area of interest. They've not done anything thus far that I can tell but remain civil and constructive. Feel free to prove me wrong, but do it at SPI, and not here. GMGtalk 21:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed Philosophy of conspiracy theories while skimming AfD, and it looked fundamentally OK. It basically reported what some philosophers had said about the general topic of conspiracy theories. As best as I could tell, it was not trying to push a POV or advance one philosopher's view as the correct one. (And the formatting looked pretty typical for a new user who has maybe looked under the hood of a few pages, has the academic background to want to use footnotes, and maybe hasn't quite been around long enough to absorb all of our house conventions. There's nothing remarkable or malicious about any of that.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A little history to help clarify the context of my original posting here on FTN. Regulars will confirm that over several years, there have been periodic and ongoing attempts to either subtly or overtly alter the text of the conspiracy theory article so that it becomes, by default, more favorable to belief in a conspiracy theory. This can take the form of arguing that not all conspiracy theories are unwarranted…or that the phrase itself is a pejorative label that has been applied unfairly…or that dictionary definitions are fairer because they don’t make judgments about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. After reading the recently created Philosophy of conspiracy theories, I recognized the familiar pattern: lots of rebuttals to the established definition of conspiracy theories, but this time selectively extracted from various philosophers published in high quality sources. When I saw the article’s author has an WP:SPA-like focus on the topic, feels skeptical sources are biased [24], and expresses kinship with an editor who recently attempted, against consensus, to change the definition of conspiracy theory to something more conducive to belief in them [25], naturally, I was (and remain) suspicious. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Philosophers are naturally going to argue that the lay or folk definitions of "conspiracy theory" are inadequate (and then disagree with each other how to define the concept more precisely; that's their job). Regarding this edit, they replaced a citation to a magazine's website with one to an academic book, removing a claim that conspiracy theory has always been a derogatory label. The book chapter argues that early uses of the term were neutral, and the pejorative connotations arose later. This seems entirely appropriate to include. Would I be so zealous as to erase the existing citation? No, but I can see why a novice editor might (and I can appreciate why an editor with an academic background might view that replacement as an obvious improvement). XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but my objection was to the edit summary given: "the Skeptical Inquirer is a biased source". - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Skeptical Inquirer is a biased source which uses cherry-picked examples. I’ve replaced it with a much better source, which has a much more nuanced conclusion based on a much sounder methodology. That sounds like a reasonable complaint to me, even though I would regard CSICOP publications reliable sources by default and would have taken a different course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was surprised that my edit was reverted—actually removing the better reference. By replacing the Skeptical Inquirer (SI) sentence and citation, I was actually protecting SI from potential embarrassment. The alternative is to leave the sentence with the SI citation, and then add a sentence with a much better citation that contradicts SI’s conclusion (which I may now do). Those aware (given the new reference) of the better-established finding who then look up the SI article will see it for what it is: an exercise in cherry picking. (Although I don’t deny that it may be reasonable sometimes to cite SI, the idea that it does not have an axe to grind on this issue astonishes me.) Knuteson (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The closing admin made some pretty outlandish accusations about this noticeboard: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of conspiracy theories. I suggest a WP:DRV be filed as the discussion was cut off for what seems to me to be arbitrary reasons. jps (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I User_talk:Barkeep49#Your_AfD_closing asked the admin to reconsider. If there isn't a decent explanation for this supervoting, I would recommend DRV. jps (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ජපස, I'll be responding to you directly on my talk page soon (came here to check a fact as part of my response) but I made no accusations about this noticeboard. I suggested that the original posting here, while perfectly fine for this board, ran afoul of nWP:CANVASS in the context of an AfD in that it failed to be neutral. Just to emphasize I don't think postings to this noticeboard need to be neutral, only notices that will impact something like AfD. However, that's a behavioral policy and as such shouldn't affect the closing of the AfD in this instance which I noted it didn't. Given that this posting was brought up in the course of the AfD discussion I did also think it important to address that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to me that people here just don't like what qualified academia has to say on the matter.80.111.44.144 (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have some concerns about this article though I haven't had a chance to wade through the sources. I did however find this reference which claims that "...many scholars have taken a relatively charitable attitude toward conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theorising in recent years." (I assume that "scholars" is specifically referring to philosophers.) I haven't read enough on this topic to decide if the article is biased or if the philosophers are contrarian, compared to what I've seen published in psychology and sociology. Below is an extended quote for those who can't get through the paywall. --mikeu talk 23:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "What's Epistemically Wrong with Conspiracy Theorising?"

    "Conspiracy theorising is often regarded as a paradigm of epistemically irrational behaviour. Yet it is strikingly difficult to identify the epistemic errors, if any, characteristic of conspiracy theorising. In fact, many of the supposed faults associated with conspiracy theorising are not faults at all, and some are commonin well-respected theoretical domains. Hence, as I argue in the first half of this paper, the faults standardly associated with conspiracy theorising do not warrant the sort of criticism to which the practice is often subjected. It is perhaps due to the resilience of conspiracy theorising to standard criticisms that many scholars have taken a relatively charitable attitude toward the practice in recent years."

    Redefinition

    In the above discussion, LuckyLouie said something important that I would like to focus on:

    "Regulars will confirm that over several years, there have been periodic and ongoing attempts to either subtly or overtly alter the text of the conspiracy theory article so that it becomes, by default, more favorable to belief in a conspiracy theory. This can take the form of arguing that not all conspiracy theories are unwarranted…or that the phrase itself is a pejorative label that has been applied unfairly…or that dictionary definitions are fairer because they don’t make judgments about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. After reading the recently created Philosophy of conspiracy theories, I recognized the familiar pattern: lots of rebuttals to the established definition of conspiracy theories, but this time selectively extracted from various philosophers published in high quality sources. When I saw the article’s author has an WP:SPA-like focus on the topic, feels skeptical sources are biased, and expresses kinship with an editor who recently attempted, against consensus, to change the definition of conspiracy theory to something more conducive to belief in them, naturally, I was (and remain) suspicious."

    I think LuckyLouie hit the nail on the head.

    Let's look at the definition on our Conspiracy theory page:

    "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof."

    Notice how different the above is from what we see at Philosophy of conspiracy theories#Definitions of conspiracy theory? Did you notice that the difference is pretty much exactly as LuckyLouie described?

    I am also seeing a pattern here. First, a conspiracy theorist redefines the phrase "Conspiracy Theory" in a way that goes against what 99% of English speakers means when they use the phrase. The usual redefinition is "any theory about a conspiracy, no matter how strong or weak the evidence is." Then the conspiracy theorist acts as if they are completely unaware of the standard definition. Finally they put together an argument based upon their redefinition, and having knocked down the straw man that they created, declare victory.

    It hinders communication when you don't use the ordinatry definition for common phrases. Yes, you can use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about the Blorgkity-blorgk stuff, Guy, but IMO it would be uncanny that all the academic sources being cited in Philosophy of conspiracy theories have objections to the denigration of conspiracy theories as their major theme. I don't have the time or access to the sources cited, but someone should. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have access (but not much more time today than I have already put in). I would not say that objecting to "the denigration of conspiracy theories" is a major theme. They're much more like, well, what you would expect if you put a bunch of philosophers into a room and asked them to define "conspiracy theory" — somebody will have a counterexample to every proposal that anyone else makes. Maybe an actual "reptoids did 9/11, Google Shokin Affidavit!!"" conspiracy theorist would point to that stuff to try and create a smokescreen, but that's not itself an indictment of philosophy, any more than creationists quote-mining arguments about the details of how some species evolved is actually an indictment of evolution. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Dictionary definitions
    A theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot: One popular conspiracy theory accuses environmentalists of sabotage in last year's mine collapse.
    A belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group: A number of conspiracy theories have already emerged, purporting to explain last week's disappearance of a commercial flight over international waters.
    The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public:
    • Merriam Webster:[27]
    A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
    • The Free Dictionary:[28]
    A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
    The belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied
    • Collins Dictionary:[29]
    A conspiracy theory is a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something. You usually use this term to suggest that you think this is unlikely.
    • Lexico (Oxford):[30]
    A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.
    • Your Dictionary:[31]
    Any theory that purports to explain something by ascribing it to collusion among powerful conspirators: a usually dismissive term implying that the theory is far-fetched, paranoid, etc. (Definition is from Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition)
    A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. [1960s]
    (Dismissive, derogatory) Hypothetical speculation that is commonly considered untrue or outlandish.
    Usage notes: The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., "just a conspiracy theory"). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form.

    ...but of course we are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so please see:

    Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy...
    The content of conspiracy theories is emotionally laden and its alleged discovery can be gratifying. The evidentiary standards for corroborating conspiracy theories is typically weak, and they are usually resistant to falsification. The survivability of conspiracy theories may be aided by psychological biases and by distrust of official sources.
    A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.

    --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Synchronicity

    SPA rewriting history. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Immune Amnesia

    I am seeing a lot of press about "Immune Amnesia". We don't seem to have an article on it. Should we? It seems like it might be an effective argument against antivax.

    --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Might want to check these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone please translate [35] from medicalspeak to engineeerspeak? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    QAnon and UFO Conspiracies Are Merging

    [36] Doug Weller talk 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone knows[Citation Needed] that these people[37] are behind both. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Quackwatch

    Some here might be interested in joining the following discuissions:

    (A third discussion here would be Another Wrong Place...) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Astrologers

    Is Sohini Sastri a type of articles we usually keep? Would an AfD stand a chance?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ymblanter, I think AfD would stand a good chance - I haven't done a thorough check, but the sourcing looks very weak, just a few puffy press releases from what I can see - I'm not seeing a cast-iron case for notability. Plus the article is promotional enough to raise concerns about UPE... GirthSummit (blether) 10:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I will have one more look and probably nominate it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazario Collection - lost Puerto Rican civilization?

    Basically about a fringe claim concerning carved stones in Puerto Rico that may be connected to the O"ld World." I see a recent rewrite relies heavily on such sources as hits[38] article by a free lance journalist which is behind a pay wall. This[39] is also heavily used, a recent English article in the same newspaper. A very large number of references (over 60) are from a YouTube video[40] of a conference talk by this person.[41] I'm pretty sure we don't use conference speeches as sources. This Haaretz article is also a source.[42] as the University of Haifa materials lab recently studied them. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=924545315"