Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 98: Line 98:


:Regardless of the quality of the sources, I think there is no reasonable doubt among historians of chemistry that it started with alchemy, and that alchemy had protoscientific aspects. What I consider more problematic is that we have separate articles [[alchemy]] and [[history of alchemy]]. That's always as if alchemy were also a modern practice, but it isn't, or at least to the extent that it is it is very much fringe even in the context of the narrow topic of alchemy. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 10:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
:Regardless of the quality of the sources, I think there is no reasonable doubt among historians of chemistry that it started with alchemy, and that alchemy had protoscientific aspects. What I consider more problematic is that we have separate articles [[alchemy]] and [[history of alchemy]]. That's always as if alchemy were also a modern practice, but it isn't, or at least to the extent that it is it is very much fringe even in the context of the narrow topic of alchemy. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 10:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

::Yes, it is certain that chemistry started with alchemy. The original chemists of the scientific revolution were also alchemists and their own writings show and speak directly concerning the transition from alchemy to chemistry (specifically ''The Skeptical Chymist''.) The name change was chosen so as to demonstrate a change in scientific method but the principles were only migrated, except with an exclusion of the unprovable aspects (the existence of the theoretical [[Philosopher's Stone]].) The modern practice is spiritual and according to academic peer-reviewed sources (see [[History of Alchemy#Alchemy from the nineteenth to twentieth centuries]]) arose in the 19th century from the occult revival, being totally unrelated to alchemy historically. Numerous alchemical texts were adulterated during this time to make them sound more ''spiritual''.
::Currently, the '''History''' section of the [[Alchemy]] is a copy of a few paragraphs from [[History of Alchemy]]. I support merging [[History of Alchemy]] into [[Alchemy]]. I support minimizing the "spiritual" interpretation, or restricting it to a separate article. Problem is that I get attacked every time I try to minimize it. There is one particular user who frequently edits who is dedicated to getting the spiritual interpretation on equal standing with the historical and academic view. Any attempt of mine to downplay the spiritual aspect, or mark it as only a fringe interpretation instead of fact, is reverted. '''Will Timony, Ph.D''' ([[User talk:Will Timony, Ph.D|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Will Timony, Ph.D|contribs]]) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:19, 5 June 2011

    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

    We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Lloyd Pye

    Lloyd Pye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The guy is fringe "science theorist" but the article currently consists of a lot of content WP:SYNthesized by wikipedia editors to disprove the claims and relying on Pyes posted criticism of his Wikipedia article in some bad WP:CIRCULAR claims - in otherwords a mess.

    Can someone come clean it up? (also cross posting on BLP notice board). Active Banana (bananaphone

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camarillo_State_Mental_Hospital

    There are many problems with the page on the Camarillo Mental Hospital. It appears that it has been written by a blogger who created a website on the psychiatric hospital that spreads false tumors and unaccurate truths. The hospital has been under scrutinity since its opening in 1936 and media coverage focused mainly on the Grand Jury trials which investigated suspicious deaths at Camarillo hospital. Since its transformation into Channel Island University, what was left of the hospital is pictured on websites that claim that the former hospital was a place of suffering and that therefore the place where it used to stand is now haunted.

    Please remove / do not edit any pages on the Camarillo Mental Hospital that do not quote articles published in books published by experts in the field. Kirsten Anderberg's website quoted on the wiki page about Camarillo is not a reliable source of information written on the hospital. Everyone writing on Camarillo Mental Hospital knows that her self-published book (Kindle) is a series of loosely documented portraits of women that she believed were patients there. Most of them were dangerous criminals who were committed to prevent them from murdering more poeple. This article is historically inaccurate because it has been written by someone well-known from real historians, a disturbed women who believes she must avenge the many victims she identifies with. For a more balanced and precise timeline, refer to the http://www.library.csuci.edu/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.140.241 (talk • contribs)

    This is a difficult situation, and I am unsure what is the best course of action here. On the one hand, the old version of the article appears to be sourced mainly to a self-published source, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It does, however, contain references to LA Times articles, which would likely be reliable sources if they back up the information in the text. On the other hand, the text which you have copied and pasted into the articles, 82.123, is directly from the document "A Brief History" on the CSUCI page, which says, right there on the page "THE MATERIALS LOCATED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE COPYRIGHTED. THEY ARE INTENDED FOR CI EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ANY USER WHO REPRODUCES THEM IN ANY WAY, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES WILL BE SUBJECT TO LAWFUL PROSECUTION." I really fail to see what about that statement is unclear. In addition to the university's prohibition, Wikipedia cannot accept material copyrighted to others without appropriate permission from the copyright owner. I would be inclined to revert to an older version of the article without either of these additions. --Kateshortforbob talk 14:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've reverted to a version prior to both these problematic additions. Eyes would be welcome to see if this was the correct move. --Kateshortforbob talk 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Texe Marrs

    Texe Marrs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Poorly sourced, appallingly formatted, out-on-the-edge-WP:FRINGE, and the 'John Hagee' section almost certainly has severe WP:BLP issues -- I'm fairly sure that you need a better source than 'Power of Prophecy Radio program' for saying that somebody "may be possessed by Satan". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A Researcher at Tired Light

    Note that at Tired light a number of IP addresses which geolocate to Tampa and Clearwater (from where the researcher comes) are spamming in his essentially unnoticed idea about tired light disproving the Big Bang. He has been promoting this idea on Wikipedia hoping to get better exposure for a few months now, and this really needs to stop. I've been observing this from afar and have noticed this campaign. Tired light is a well-known historical concept in astrophysics that was falsified early on in the history of cosmology. A few itinerant physicists none of whom are noticed in the community (including the researcher) continue to fight for their opposition to the Big Bang, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place that they do it. Please put this article on your watchlist and explain to the Tampa/Clearwater IPs that they should try to get their ideas noticed by ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A rather than spamming across the internet. Note that this behavior was also reported to WP:COIN.

    198.202.202.22 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This issue was brought up over at WP:COIN and we are referring this back over to FTN for further discussion on this matter. There is a concern about WP:Outing and WP:Civil regarding this reporter. However, all the same, he does bring up an issue which will likely need to be addressed by someone more skilled in addressing FT. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Licorne was banned from Wikipedia for Holocaust Denial promotion, anti-semeticism, and pseudophysics promotions (which he is still doing). It isn't right that you all are letting him post his ongoing anti-reality propaganda at tired light under all these different IP addresses which all are being used by the same person. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I got fed-up and rewrote the tired light article to try to prevent this nonsense, but this banned user is still pushing pretty hard on the talkpage, promoting the cosmologystatement.org nonsense that has been a standard issue by such pseudophysics promoters. I'm not sure what if anything can be done to deter him in his quest to get his article and those other absurd ideas he's a fan of listed at Wikipedia, but now at least the article seems to function as a reasonable object lesson in the history of astrophysics. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As an uninvolved editor, and since the dispute is still ongoing, I have requested that this page be temporarily protected due to the edit warring taking place amongst editors. Please work to resolve things in the talk page, and reach consensus instead of simply editing the page with disputed material. Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor clamoring for his work to be included doesn't seem to be listening to the arguments. He thinks that Physics Essays is a reliable source when it publishes trash. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reichian therapy and associated articles

    Just came across a whole heap of associated articles of questionable scientific basis:

    It was the laast article that drew my attention to them. Whilst I have the impression that Reichian therapy is considered WP:FRINGE, there is little in these (and probably other, related) articles to indicate this. However, this is outside my area of expertise, so I can offer no more than the odd tag on the subject. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Alchemy

    There is argument on the alchemy related regarding the spiritual interpretation (see Talk:Alchemy#Issues with Article, New Contributor). Some editors believe the spiritual interpretation should have equal standing to the academic historical evidence, which (in peer-reviewed publications) states that the spiritual interpretations arose in the 19th century from the Victorian occult revival (I quoted these sources on the talk page.) The alchemy related articles are often overwhelmed with editors who support the spiritual interpretation, as these are the people who are interested in alchemy and so choose to help edit it. That's fine, if they could provide peer-reviewed academic sources, but I have yet to see one. I did an analysis on the sources used to support that interpretations and none of them were reliable as per WP:IRS (some did not even exist and one was a children's book.) However, I'm confused as to how argumentative I should be. I have multiple academic peer-reviewed sources which say that alchemy was a physical protoscience based on philosophical principles and not spiritual, but I'm being told firmly and repeatedly on the talk page that the spiritual interpretation should still get equal emphasis to the modern academic view. Are non-modern non-peer reviewed sources which forward the spiritual interpretation acceptable to be used as sources, and how much emphasis should this theory be given?

    A further problem is that multiple academic peer-reviewed publications state that many classical alchemical sources were adulterated during the 19th and early 20th centuries to make them support the spiritual interpretation. So what to do about this? Can these sources still be used even though modern academics mark them as fraudulent? And how to tell which is which?

    What to do, what to do? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fritz Springmeier

    Article's a mess, from formatting to content. Someone's added a pov notice today to it. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Raised at WP:BLPN as it's a real mess and we need to sort out any BLP issues in it. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tritype

    Tritype seems to be a subcategory of the fringe theory Enneagram of Personality. One SPA editor Raa18123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pushing "Katherine Chernick Fauvre's" explanation of the Enneagram with a standalone article, removing a PROD at one point, and later an Orphan tag. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor with a bone to pick

    Please revert this pseudophysicist promoter on sight:

    [1]

    140.252.83.232 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is his second account:

    [2]

    140.252.83.232 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Alchemy#Alchemy_as_a_Protoscience

    Is the above section in the Alchemy article appropriate/appropriately sourced? There have been some issues with content in the past. Active Banana (bananaphone 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mostly no. I've been arguing for reliability of sources for a while. Same type of thing (fringe theory, bad sources) is being adding all over alchemy related articles, especially also in the intro paragraph. There is now 1 proper academic peer-reviewed source to support 1 statement in that section, but since the page that is referenced is not shown on Google Books, I am unable to check whether the source supports the statement. I feel the spiritual interpretation (which is academically argued against) is receiving too much weight across all alchemy articles.
    Is is possible to introduce a special policy on all Alchemy categorized articles so that only academic, peer-reviewed sources, or primary sources with no interpretation of any kind, are allowed? And all statements, no matter how much the editor believes them to be true, must have an academic peer-reviewed source? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the quality of the sources, I think there is no reasonable doubt among historians of chemistry that it started with alchemy, and that alchemy had protoscientific aspects. What I consider more problematic is that we have separate articles alchemy and history of alchemy. That's always as if alchemy were also a modern practice, but it isn't, or at least to the extent that it is it is very much fringe even in the context of the narrow topic of alchemy. Hans Adler 10:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is certain that chemistry started with alchemy. The original chemists of the scientific revolution were also alchemists and their own writings show and speak directly concerning the transition from alchemy to chemistry (specifically The Skeptical Chymist.) The name change was chosen so as to demonstrate a change in scientific method but the principles were only migrated, except with an exclusion of the unprovable aspects (the existence of the theoretical Philosopher's Stone.) The modern practice is spiritual and according to academic peer-reviewed sources (see History of Alchemy#Alchemy from the nineteenth to twentieth centuries) arose in the 19th century from the occult revival, being totally unrelated to alchemy historically. Numerous alchemical texts were adulterated during this time to make them sound more spiritual.
    Currently, the History section of the Alchemy is a copy of a few paragraphs from History of Alchemy. I support merging History of Alchemy into Alchemy. I support minimizing the "spiritual" interpretation, or restricting it to a separate article. Problem is that I get attacked every time I try to minimize it. There is one particular user who frequently edits who is dedicated to getting the spiritual interpretation on equal standing with the historical and academic view. Any attempt of mine to downplay the spiritual aspect, or mark it as only a fringe interpretation instead of fact, is reverted. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=432663362"