Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
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: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Byrzynski

I'm wondering what's really going on here with all these solo edits. There is no collaborative editing occurring here:

Diff of thirteen+ edits, ending with an "under construction" template, but no activity. I want to AGF, but this needs more eyes. Some of the edit summaries, especially the first one (23:22, November 7, 2014‎ ), are dubious, if not worse. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been suspicious, but hadn't found specifics before going to bed last night. we'll see. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's legit, but the author is not I think a native English speaker. I exchanged emails. Seems fine now anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Fringe Theories on the Front Page?

Dorothy Kilgallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The "On This Day" hook for today's anniversary of Dorothy Kilgallen's death looks really dicey to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I missed this. Per Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 8, the hook is:

"1965 – American journalist Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead in her New York City townhouse, in what was rumored to be a murder because of information she had regarding controversial stories such as the John F. Kennedy assassination."

I will admit that I am unfamiliar with the application of the specific guidelines regarding "On This Day", but it appears as though this would fail WP:OTDRULES #3 (i.e. "The event needs to be of moderate to great historical significance"), particularly since the idea that Kilgallen's death was a "suspicious" is a fringe theory started two years after her death. This appears to have originated with conspiracy theorists Mark Lane (author) and Penn Jones, Jr. and unquestionably spread by her biographer, Lee Israel; all of these sources are unreliable enough that their statements normally would require at least in-text attribution. Wikipedia should primarily reflect mainstream views and the mainstream explanation for her death was a combination of alcohol and barbiturates, and it was uncertain as to whether this was suicide or accidental. If Wikipedia is to keep this entry, it should state:

"1965 – American journalist Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead in her New York City townhouse from a combination of alcohol and barbiturates."

It appears as though this was initially added by TheCustomOfLife on November 7, 2004 (diff). Gentgeen, Zzyzx11, and Howcheng (all administrators) have been involved with editing the entry and moving it in and out of the queue, so I'm pinging them here in the event they wish to contribute. - Location (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's understandable that OTD would wish to attract readership with snappy prose, but they should not be using fringe theories as a form of journalistic "hook". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If they want the conspiracy theory hook, they should at least be up front about it: "1965 – American journalist Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead in her New York City townhouse from a combination of alcohol and barbiturates. Her death would later lead to conspiracy theories that she was murdered because she had information regarding controversial stories such as the John F. Kennedy assassination." Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That's too wordy. —howcheng {chat} 06:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, once you redact the fringe stuff there is nothing there that merits mention on the Front Page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. - Location (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Surely there's much more notable things that happened on this day. Kilgallen was a notable journalist who should have an article, but her death is not an event that is even remotely comparable to the other events selected for that day. Why not replace it with this much more notable event: " The Bodleian Library, one of Europe's oldest libraries, opened at the University of Oxford." Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. My only edit regarding that hook was to hide it, as I didn't think it met the criteria to be on the front page. Looking back close to a decade now, I should have just removed it instead of hiding it. Gentgeen (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed it from the active list. Maybe Howcheng can verify if I did this properly. - Location (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• On a side note I have added a Fringe Theories tag to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola

Just a heads up, on Talk:Ebola virus disease, there have been recent attempts to have various "hypotheses" and "traditional approaches" to ebola treatment added to the article, based on minimal/unreliable sourcing. It would be helpful if people could spend some time looking over articles and talk pages related to ebola, ebola treatment and ebola outbreaks to ensure that fringe theories are not being smuggled in to them. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the traditional approach was to die in agony, drowned in your own bodily fluids. Am I wrong about that suddenly? Guy (Help!) 21:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Xenoglossy

Fringe claims sourced to psychic journals being added to this article by 74.195.244.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has consistently re-added these fringe sources a number of times after being asked to seek consensus first (see talk-page). Goblin Face (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically a slow edit war. But it's on my watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This IP just keeps inserting the same fringe sources and ignoring everything that has been said, he now accuses Wikipedia editors of bias as they oppose the 'life after death theory'. His bulk edit every time just seems to mess up the article, it should be reverted but some unrelated editors need to look into this, I will not be further reverting him otherwise will be edit-warring problems. Goblin Face (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the 'good@ version today. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Krippner

There seems to be a problem with this article, every month. A group of IPs keep white-washing the article and deleting any reliable sources like James Alcock etc. There seems to be a pattern here. Most recently 50.247.107.41 (talk · contribs) claims to be Krippner himself, but another account has claimed this already, as has another IP. I would assume all these IPs are Krippner or associated with him, same pattern of removing the same sources. I have asked for him to seek consensus or at least discuss on the talk-page first but he has not done this.

• 71.174.36.172 (talk · contribs)
• 71.174.33.76 (talk · contribs)
• 64.145.126.70 (talk · contribs)
• 50.247.107.41 (talk · contribs)
• Skrippner (talk · contribs)

The same sort of thing happened on the Sam Parnia article and it had to be locked. I don't have time to keep looking over this article as I am busy with other stuff right now but this pattern of editing seems to be constant and monthly. Goblin Face (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I requested temporary semi-protection for the page. If the problem persists down the road we may have to ask for permanent protection. As of now I don't see a reasonable justification for locking the article. I am also going to add some warnings to the respective talk pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the request for page protection was denied due to lack of recent activity. I have added the page to my watch list though and if anything weird pops up we can act on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks for this. It seems to be a monthly thing. We will just wait and see what happens I guess. Goblin Face (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A substantial edit was made with a misleading edit summary, "m (Fixing reference error raised by ReferenceBot)" by Skrippner. I have reverted it. I also removed a big chunk of puffery based only on primary sources with this edit. I posted a notice on the user's talk page here and commented on the article talk page here. Skrippner has posted an unsigned comment at BLPN here which mentions a specific editor and copies material from that editor's user page without notifying of pinging that editor. It includes a personal attack on that editor ("a malicious person who is tampering", "the perpetrator") and an ill informed comment ("He has been making unauthorized changes to biographies.") Some input from editors active on this NB would probably be useful. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have requested temporary full page protection. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The 1001: A Nature Trust

The 1001: A Nature Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The founder of the World Wildlife Fund got a 1000 rich people together to contribute to the WWF's financial endowment. Some believe that this group of people are a cabal that does nefarious things with all their money and power (e.g. [1]). I am posting to solicit additional opinions on the talk page as to whether a secret membership list reported by one source is appropriate for inclusion. Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I support this request for further opinions. You'll allow me to add our subject we discussed on the talk page:

• The question we sere dealing with was the confidential membership list from the estate of British journalist Kevin Dowling, according to Wilfried Huismann (2014). User:Location regards both Huismann and Dowling as no reliable sources. On the other hand he (indirectly) supports the opinion of Ann O'Hanlon of the Washington Monthly (which he regards as reliable source), that we know the members of the 1001 club (otherwise it's not possible to state: "The secret list of members includes a disproportionate percentage of South Africans"). But User:Location did not explain yet, which source for the secret membership lists was used for this claim at all then. So it seems the known sources refer to Dowlings membership lists and Dowling itself is backed in important findings about the WWF by Stephen Ellis, a Dutch scientist, whom User:Location regards as reliable source. Nevertheless User:Location says, no one backs Dowling as reliable source. These arguments are not consistent - and the same is with the article, when Huismann's report about Dowling is neglected, but other reports about the same matter are regarded as reliable.
• The question we were dealing with was not about the existing conspiracy theories about the aims of the "1001" club. User:Location and me are agreed about the requirement that we have to avoid penetration of WP by conspiracy theories. We can report about them if regarded as appropriate, but must not adopt them. I am completely aware about the fact, that we must thoroughly check, which users add what kind of information to the article and using what kind of sources. But the subject "authenticity of the 1001 membership lists provided by Dowling and cited in Huismann" has to be regarded independently from the question of alleged aims of the club etc. (I am not interested in such speculations anyway). It is a matter of factual claims, not of "believe" as User:Location put it above.

Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) + --00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely unclear from the proposed edit (as laid out on Talk:The 1001: A Nature Trust) whether the source cited for the list, German journalist Wilfried Huismann, is saying that the people listed are members, or that they are included on a list of members 'found on the Internet'. If it is the latter, there is no way per WP:BLP policy that we can possibly include such names. If it is the former, there are two issues: firstly, is Huismann a reliable source for a confidential list (he seems to be a controversial figure with regards to his writings on the WMF), and secondly is it appropriate to add the list to the article. I think we need to know more about what Huismann wrote. Does he state that the list is authentic? And does the list include everyone Huismann names, or (as seems to be implied by the proposed wording) are the individuals named selected from the list Huismann provides as 'prominent amongst the world's political and financial elite' - if the latter is true, it appears to be WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I see. I am sorry for my bad English. I should have used "available" instead of "can be found". Huismann considers the membership lists as authentic. He wrote (e.g. in Huismann 2014, p. 170) he got them from the estate of Kevin Dowling. And then he added, that they are even available on Internet now (he mentioned it, because some years before he still had to do several months of research for finding them). All names in the table I added, are mentioned by Huismann as included in the membership lists of 1978 and 1987 (p. 170-173). The Guardian/Observer, Süddeutsche Zeitung and others also cited members of "The 1001" as known. The Guardian put it as: "Names of the members that have slipped out over the years include Baron von Thyssen, Fiat boss Gianni Agnelli, and Henry Ford, as well as corrupt politicians such as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, the former president of the International Olympic Committee Juan Samaranch, and beer baron Alfred Heineken." (all names are included in Dowling's membership lists according to Huismann 2014 btw.). I don't know any source which claims, that Dowling's membership lists are fake. User:Location did not explain, why he considers this as part of a conspiracy theory. Even the WWF, who was strongly worried about Huismann's massive criticism against it in the 1st German edition ("Schwarzbuch WWF") in 2011/2012 and who went to court therefore, did not call the membership lists as cited by Huismann into question. The book as we see it now and as it has been translated into English, survived all the attacks of the WWF.

So the membership lists seem to be challenged by no-one but User:Location up to now. Just because you mentioned it: When you call Huismann a controversial figure with regards to his writings on the WWF than because the WWF attacked Huismann. Not third parties attacked Huismann. To the contrary the German media defended Huismann against the methods of the WWF. And this is also the case for conservative media as Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung. So the WWF itself is regarded as "controversial" party meanwhile and it's statements have to be checked carefully. I recommed the findings of Dutch Stephen Ellis concerning the role of the WWF in South Africa, as also pointed out by Dowling, from whom Huismann got the membership lists. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that you are correct above (and I have no reason to doubt it), there is still the question as to whether the article should include the list of members - there is clearly an argument that it is undue if only Huismann (amongst credible sources) considers naming them significant. The Guardian piece you cite quotes Huismann as saying "The '1001 club' is still important for the WWF, even though it's not a secret central committee. I hate conspiracy theories, but I'm convinced that the discreet '1001 club' still influences the strategic decisions of the WWF, because many of its members are important players in global and powerful financial and industrial corporations that rule the planet" which actually does amount to a conspiracy theory, and one that we arguably shouldn't be promoting without evidence that it is taken seriously by other commentators - it should be noted that the Guardian piece quotes a WWF spokesman as saying that they "are now much choosier about which interests we accept donations from and which interests we work with". That may or may not be true, but we shouldn't be echoing Huismann's version alone: the Guardian makes it clear that there is more than one side to this story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

One other point: there are serious WP:BLP issues involved in naming individuals from a list which our article suggests includes "a disproportionate percentage of South Africans, all too happy in an era of social banishment to be welcomed into a socially elite society. Other contributors include businessmen with suspect connections, including organized crime, environmentally destructive development, and corrupt African politics." While we aren't stating outright that the particular individuals concerned fall into such groups, a reasonable reader might assume that we we were implying this - why else would we be naming such particular individuals? If the list were to be included, there would have to be a fundamental rewording to avoid any such implication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the point. I do support User:Location that we have to avoid any promotion of conspiracy theories. That is, why I stick on the subject of the membership lists only and why I do not support any assessment of the members's "quality" (affiliation, habit, ...) or even of alleged club's aims circulating on the internet. And this is why I don't understand that User:Location regards the (already in this WP article existing) Washington Monthly's quote "a disproportionate percentage of South Africans, all too happy in an era of social banishment to be welcomed into a socially elite society. Other contributors include businessmen with suspect connections, including organized crime, environmentally destructive development, and corrupt African politics." (that means an inferential claim, which can't be verified easily) as legitimate information in WP, but he denies my addition of the membership lists (that means a factual claim, which can be checked), which he regards as not justified or reliable information. This is not consistent. Vice versa it makes more sense.

why else would we be naming such particular individuals? If the list were to be included, there would have to be a fundamental rewording to avoid any such implication.: The reason, why we should choose those particular individuals, is easy to explain. Huismann put it like this (p. 170): "Some of the names I was seeing for the first time, but most of them sounded familiar, because they were prominent amongst the world's political and financial elite.". Maybe I sould have mentioned it in my edit, but I did not, assuming it would be obvious: all cited members are very prominent or influential persons . We can add less known members as well of course if wished. For example we could add more personalities from the German business elite, such as the bankers, but I don't know whether readers in the en:WP are the same interested in persons like Robert Pferdmenges and Hermann Josef Abs (cf. Süddeutsche Zeitung) as German readers might be. But of course we can reword the text connected with the lists to avoid undesirable suggestive effects.

The Guardian piece you cite quotes Huismann [...quote...] which actually does amount to a conspiracy theory, and one that we arguably shouldn't be promoting without evidence that it is taken seriously by other commentators [...]: User:Location stressed this quote in the Guardian's article (which was my own reference), too, to explain his doubts for the membership lists. But: 1. This also can be treated as Huismann's legitimate working assumption, since his book's chapter (2014, p. 170-174) according to the membership lists does not includes this claim. And 2: Anyway the question, whether the membership lists are authentic or not has to be considered independently from what anyone may conclude in a second step. If we try to avoid any information that could promote neuronal WWF-critical associations of readers, this no longer would represent quality assurance. It would mean self-censorship. Exactly this is, what the German media criticized when Amazon and others removed Huismann's book some years ago, because of the pressure made by WWF. This should be history now. In Germany it is at least. Amazon now even prints the English version ("Printed in Germany by Amazon Distribution GmbH Leipzig", I read in the English 2014 edition). Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making - it is only Huismann (of the sources you have cited) that thinks naming this long list of individuals is significant. That doesn't seem to me to be adequate grounds for inclusion unless other credible sources also consider the membership list as important. And no, we cannot simultaneously make statements about the membership including 'businessmen with suspect connections' etc and list members without seriously risking violating WP:BLP policy - which is policy, and accordingly has to be followed, whether you consider it 'self-censorship' or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And can you clarify what you mean when you write "we could add more personalities from the German business elite"? I had earlier asked whether the list in the article was Huismann's complete list - and I thought that you had indicated that it was. Is it the complete list, or isn't it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it the complete list, or isn't it? The 1001 club includes 1001 members (the number is fix - in case a member dies, the next aspirant succeeds). The list I added in my edit sums up those selected names, Huismann listed in Huismann 2014, p. 170, 172f. On page 172 Huismann provides the facsimile of an extract of the membership list. There you can find further names of members. Media reports of Huismann researches (such as by SZ) mention further members. All names I listed in my edit come from Huismann 2014, p. 170, 172f.

"cannot simultaneously make statements about the membership including 'businessmen with suspect connections' etc and list members without seriously risking violating WP:BLP policy": As already mentioned, I did not support the declaration 'businessmen with suspect connections'. As far as I understood User:Location regards this as hint at existing allegations, but better ask himself, why he supports this. This is not my subject here. I just want to add an extract of the membership list as given by Huismann. This is what important media outlets report and I don't see why WP should block this information. But if you don't want an extract of members mentioned in the same article with the expression 'businessmen with suspect connections' why should we delete the extract of members then (a factual claim)? Wouldn't it be better to delete the expression 'businessmen with suspect connections' (an inferential claim)?

it is only Huismann (of the sources you have cited) that thinks naming this long list of individuals is significant.: I don't consider 34 out of 1001 members as a "long list", but of course this is a Wiki and when the authors come to the result we should limit the extract to - let's say - 5 or 8 names, we can do this as well. Why not. I chose these 34, because all names in this list of Huismann's ectract represent very well known and important persons. I did not see a reason to reduce it. But of course we can do that, if the WP authors see here a necessity for it.

seriously risking violating WP:BLP policy - which is policy, and accordingly has to be followed, whether you consider it 'self-censorship' or not: No, WP:BLP policy is not made for legitimation of self-censorship but helps to secure quality standards of information. Up to now no-one has cited a single source that claims, that Dowling's membership lists cited in Huismann are products of a conspiracy theory. It would be a constructed claim to state this. I don't see any infringement of WP:BLP by listing about thirty worldwide very prominet "1001" members of the 1970s and 1980s out of one thousand. You know why I mentioned "self-censorship"? Even Politicians such as de:Burkhardt Müller-Sönksen (media-policy spokesperson of the FDP) called the reaction of the book wholesale to the pressure of WWF "self-censorship". The de:Deutsche Journalistinnen- und Journalisten-Union (Union of German Journalists) even accused the WWF for "censorship". Greetings --,Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Selecting 34 individuals from the list on the basis that you consider them "very well known and important persons" is original research. We do not construct lists based on our own personal opinions. And you have still not provided any evidence that anyone but Huismann considers this list significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I did no original research here. I did not select 34 individuals from the list, but cited the source Huismann, who did the selection. I did not construct them as beeing very well known and important persons. My (deleted) edit just listed them without commenting. Only here in the discussion I mentioned that Huismann selected them because of their importance and prominence, and everyone can see this following the wikilinks to the names.

First you said we cannot just list some names without explaining why. That's why I explained you (here in the discussion, not in the article) that just a look at the seletcted names shows that those people are all prominent persons. Now you say I did original research by just considering them as very well known and important persons. To "consider" a person well known without stating it in the article is original research? Are you serious? Look at huismann's list and decide yourself whether you consider them as well known or not: 1. Karim Aga Khan IV. (billionaire Muslim spiritual leader) 2. Giovanni Agnelli (Fiat), 3. Lord Astor of Hever (president of The Times of London), 4. Henry Ford II, 5. Stephen Bechtel (Bechtel Group (USA)), 6. Berthold Beitz (Krupp), 7. Martine Cartier-Bresson, 8.Joseph Cullman III (CEO Philip Morris), 9. Charles de Chambrun, 10. H.R.H. Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, 11. Sir Eric Drake (General Director of British Petroleum), 12. Friedrich Karl Flick (German-Austrian industrialist and billionaire), 13. Manuel Fraga Iribarne (Minister of Information of Franco's dictatorial regime in Spain), 14. C. Gerald Goldsmith, 15. Ferdinand H. M. Grapperhaus (Dutch Undersecretary), 16. Alfred Heineken, 17. Lukas Hoffmann (Hoffmann-La Roche), 18. Lord John King (British Airways), 19. Sheikh Salim bin Laden (elder brother of Osama bin Laden), 20. John H. Loudon (CEO Shell), 21. Daniel K. Ludwig (U. S. shipping magnate and billionaire), 22. José Martínez de Hoz (Minister of the Economy under the military dictatorship of Jorge Rafael Videla), 23. Robert McNamara (Vietnam-era U.S. Secretary of Defense), 24. Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller (shipping magnate), 25. Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, 26. Keshub Mahindra (India's Mahindra Group), 27. Harry Frederick Oppenheimer (Anglo American Corporation), 28. David Rockefeller (Chase Manhattan Bank), 29. Agha Hasan Abedi (President of BCCI Bank), 30. Tibor Rosenbaum (BCI, Geneva), 31. Baron Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild, 32. Juan Antonio Samaranch (president of the IOC), 33. Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire's longtime dictator), 34. Peter von Siemens (Siemens), 35. Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, 36. Joachim Zahn (Daimler-Benz.

First you said, the list is too long for Wikipedia, now you say, a selection means original research. Okay, no problem at all. We can cite the names listed in the Guardian then, if you prefer that. It is short (as you wanted it) and it is a another source, as you wanted it. And Guardian considers this as significant to mention it. it. What do you think about that? Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC) --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The primary reason for rejecting the long list is not because it is long, but because it appears to be research that originated with one unreliable source (Dowling) and was reiterated by another (Huismann). (You have claimed that Dowling is reliable or that we have not shown that he is unreliable. On this point, the burden is on you to show that he had a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. We do not default to accepting someone as a reliable source, particularly when they have made WP:REDFLAG claims. The fact that Huismann is reiterating that material in the context of his own WP:REDFLAG claims is sufficient for rejection.) Regarding the material from The Guardian, do you have a specific proposal?. - Location (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is "we", is it you in person, User Location? You are not WP. You are one author, not more, the same as me and everyone here. I'm working here since years, and I always used reliable sources and fought for quality standards in this encyclopedia. Do you regard Huismann as biased and not reliable and do you use WWF as reliable source at the same time? That's not logic. But worse: you did not cite a single source to proove that Huismanns claims according to WWF are WP:REDFLAG claims. This seems to be your personal view. Even the WWF does not attack the authenticity of the membership lists, but you do? When Ellis cites the 1987 membership list which he possesses a copy of, how can you state that Huismann is using an incorrect copy? It isn't me who tries to make original research here. I hope you don't try to do so. Just accept that there are reliable sources which prove the identities of more than 1000 club members of 20th century. We got it, science proved it, you just have to accept, this is a free encyclopedia without censorship. You may not like the result, but we know members of the 1001 Club and we should report important examples as given in the literature. When you start reading the sources instead of just repeating your first position, you will see it yourself. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your issues have been addressed ad nauseam here and on the article's talk page by myself and at least one other editor. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now applies. - Location (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting, you misused your own sources to construct your very private claims, based on nothing. And 20 minutes after I edited the article, using your own sources, revealing that you used them wrong, you showed up here for the first time again and tried to save your face. Your are right. It was useless to discuss there and here with you. You already had the result in your mind, before reading a single source. And you kept it after reading them. Don't fear long discussions any more. Regarding the material from The Guardian, do you have a specific proposal? You ask me that and then escaping to ad nauseam lamentation. Read your untenable claims and compare with the sources. No more is needed. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have little appetite for conspiracy theories; even less so when there are BLP implications. The current version of the article needs either a revert or an axe. bobrayner (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner, this is about the membership lists of the WWF's 1001 club, so far known according to reliable sources. I even had to look for "BLP" via search engines in order to understand, what you are talking about at all. And first match I found (typing "BLP wikipedia") was this one (https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg96140.html), where it is said that someone called "Andy the Grump" "teach these wikinazis a thing or two about objectivity". It's fine to hear that, but I never heard about this BlackLight Power before and I don't know whether "Andy the Grump"'s or yours or onyone else's "BLP" fight is a good thing to deal with or not. But again: this discussion paragraph deals with the issue of the 1001 club's membership lists only. And I used only scientific sources [to edit this article]. That's why I wonder at what kind of constructions, imaginations, or myths this may trigger in your mind. Remember, this is about WWF's history, South Africa's history maybe, but not about any weird conspiracy theories, you may try to excoriate me with. It's only necessary to read the existing sources (R. Bonner, S. Ellis (& G. ter Haar), M. Ramutsindela, M. Spierenburg, H. Wels, R. Duffy, G. Murr....; some of them already cited in the en:WP's article), but - please - not to contribute with exuberant phantasy. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

‪Centre for Fortean Zoology‬

• ‪Centre for Fortean Zoology‬ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of sciency-sounding claims, but very little, if anything, in the way of independent sources found for this org.

• ‪Jonathan Downes‬ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ‪Richard Freeman (cryptozoologist)‬ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Part of a walled garden of CFZ articles linked above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the three additional articles should be redirected and the first article needs substantial work. This isn't my area of research expertise, perhaps Goblin Face can find some RS to improve this from an in universe promo piece to something like an encyclopedic article. I did some tagging perhaps that will draw some editorial effort. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The main article has been substantially cleaned up. CFZ Press and Weird Weekend have been deleted/redirected to the main article. The two bios will possibly require AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen

See the discussion on fringe conspiracy theories at Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. (Belated signature -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC))

Who knew a bio of a columnist was being used as a WP:COATRACK for all kinds of fringe theories? On my watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll comment there. - Location (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The article appears to be object of some ongoing and rather aggressive PROFRINGE editing. I've been doing a lot of reverting. Personally I think the whole article needs a rewrite with all of the conspiracy stuff chopped down to essentials and relegated to a single section per WP:DUE. In the meantime extra-eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Lunatic charlatans

The "lunatic charlatans" of whom Jimbo spoke are still trying to rewrite the real world through Wikipedia. The most persistent WP:SPA has filed a mediation request. Given that the proponents openly admit in their own online petition that reflecting their POV would require the implementation and enforcement of new policies, and Jimbo's robust response, it would help if a couple of the regulars here could help the mediation volunteer to understand why this is not an issue that can be mediated, but a straightforward collision between The Truth™ and WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find anything to add. This seems pretty clear. Please post relevant updates should this not be summarily dismissed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Generation Rescue

Generation Rescue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A primary sourced draft whitewash has been posted to Talk:Generation Rescue. I think this article needs some eyes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3, you know I agree with your overall POV, but the disclaimer-type text (see reference #1) in the pro-autism articles gets to be excessive. -Location (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Red Bird River Shelter Petroglyphs

I have found a source on the real site [2] which, compared with the article, makes clear just what a mess this is. I'm not utterly convinced that the rock now enshrined actually came from the NRHP site. If someone could find a reliable source which connects the one to the other it would help a great deal. Mangoe (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We have this semi-sorted: the rock is from a real site, the Red Bird River Petroglyphs, which as you can see has a very similar name. I'm up for rewriting this but I could use some eyes on dealing with the fringiness. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Boyd Bushman part 2

The AfD for this fringe and tabloid churnalism-sourced bio is being contested at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Boyd_Bushman. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cummins v Bond

Is this notable? The sources are terrible. Goblin Face (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Basically every book on intellectual property law appears to cite it. But also yes, the article is pretty bad. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ted Gunderson

This bio probably needs some balancing. I get the impression that besides the one book he came to the public eye as a conspiracy theory pusher, but the odd structure of the article shows signs of trying to minimize this. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There do appear to be some issues. For example, the article states:

"He was most famous for handling the Marilyn Monroe and the John F. Kennedy cases."

The reference for that material states it a bit differently:

"Gunderson said his father worked on high-profile cases such as the death of Marilyn Monroe and the assassination of President John Kennedy." [emphasis mine]

If he worked in Los Angeles and Dallas, he might have browsed through case files at one point, but (per WP:REDFLAG) there are no other reliable sources verifying that he actually did work on those cases. If that cannot be verified as his "claim to fame", then I am wondering why he is notable. - Location (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

His actual claim to notoriety is his pushing the satanic ritual abuse hysteria. He was involved in the McMartin preschool trial and the Jeffrey R. MacDonald case, and he appeared as an "expert" in Geraldo's infamous expose. I haven't found enough material for a proper biography without using blogs. Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reactionless drive

Some new stuff has been added, and it looks like OR and fringe OR to me, but I am not sure, I could use a second opinion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that. The editor adding the new material has put a message on the Talk page, something about a 'startling discovery' that's about to alter mainstream understandings of physics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that is usually red flag territory right there..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Note the contributions of this editor.... Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone with more background in the topic is needed to evaluate if "curved spacetimes offer a notable exception to Newton's third law" and if this is notable enough to be in the article lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Integrative medicine

Some recent editing activity at this article has raised some questions about sourcing and weight. The views of fringe-savvy editors will no doubt be useful in informing the ongoing debate. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(Add) to keep things neat, It would be nice if any follow-up discussion took place at Talk:Integrative medicine rather than bifurcating the discussion by starting here too. 19:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Above Top Secret

I can't believe it hasn't been nominated for deletion before now. I've AfD'ed it here. BlueSalix (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Near-death experience

See recent POV edits and huge rant on the talk-page. Goblin Face (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

deletion of editor comments in Talk

An ANI regarding the deletion of editor comments in Talk by fringe theories editors is active here. BlueSalix (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't bring ANI drama here - the appropriateness or otherwise of deletions of comments is entirely outside the remit of this notice board. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Madoc

See [3] which I reverted. Editor User: ‎Doug Coldwell removed sourced text saying it was pov. The section heading was also changed from "sources of the legend" to "sources", although multiple sources call it a legend.[4] Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

List of events at Soldier Field

Some of you may recall that in August I brought up Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy, a non-existent plot fabricated by Abraham Bolden after he was arrested on bribery charges. Per WP:FRINGE, I removed material related to this in List of events at Soldier Field (diff), however, the material was recently restored, fringe sources and all, with a minor wording change (diff). Another set of eyes would be helpful. Thanks! - Location (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Igor Witkowski

A Polish secret Nazi antigravity weapon conspiracy theorist known only for being mentioned in one of Nick Cook's books. I can find no secondary RS for Igor Witkowski that are independent of the conspiracy claims, and there have been past attempts at using primary sources to create a pseudobiography, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Witkowski. Also I would appreciate someone looking over the sources at Die Glocke, they seem rather thin, and depend heavily on conspiracy theory books by Adventures Unlimited Press. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Joseph P. Farrell

One of the legions of authors from Adventures Unlimited Press ... any thoughts? BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source for him. Should be deleted. Goblin Face (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's a magnet for fringe theories editors so the AfD will probably fail. BlueSalix (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Publication suggesting Wikipedia has been suckered into a black hole of scientific error....

Bouncing around the Internet I came upon a publication via Google Scholar titled "Thermodynamics≠ Information Theory: Science's Greatest Sokal Affair," seemingly claiming a widely practiced and modernly well-recognized misuse of terminology relating to information theory, thermodynamics, and entropy, and calling out Wikipedia as a propogater of this error, specifically pointing up various Wikipedia pages as examples of such. I don't know how seriously this ought to be taken or if it has been previously addressed since the publication dates to 2012 (but not to my knowledge, having tinkered here and there with some pages pronounced upon). DeistCosmos (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Libb Thims the author of that paper, is the same person as "Sadi Carnot" [5]. He is a fringe proponent and perm banned Wikipedia user. He went by the user Sadi Carnot (and other sock puppets), many old incidents about him on the admin board. Has all been discussed before. Not a reliable source for anything. Goblin Face (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Gustav Geley

Mass content added to this article by new IP, in some cases copied from other articles and numerous fringe sources added. Goblin Face (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)