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:

"Eco-imperialism" and related conspiracy theories

There are ongoing disputes about the viewpoint of this article and several related articles. See the main discussion here: Talk:Eco-imperialism#NPOV. Jarble (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Environmental justice#Environmental elitism appears to be similarly biased. This section should be paraphrased unless we can verify that its assertions are accurate. Jarble (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've suggested on page talk that this page be turned to a redirect to Environmental_movement#Criticisms Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Simonm223: On which talk page was the suggestion made? Jarble (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The one for Eco-imperialism - and another user concurred before I was WP:BOLD and did just that. Simonm223 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Biological transmutation

An article that could probably do with attention from WP:FTN regulars... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Rewritten. I only worked with what was already in the article so feel free to add more. I'd also suggest that the page should really be a redirect to Transmutation of species and the article moved to Biological transmutation (Louis Kervran) or a similar title. Sunrise (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, a "Further reading" section I removed (the majority of which is fringe content) has been reverted back in by an IP. Sunrise (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

After notability is established fringe articles should describe the full absurdity of the proponents claims - however absurd. In doing so we must avoid presenting these materials in a way that lends false credibility to the topic. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Transmutation of species has absolutly nothing to do with Biological transmutation84.106.11.117 (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's an implausible redirect (it's certainly the first thing I thought of when the name appeared here). AFAIK it's the only place that "transmutation" occurs as generally understood terminology in biology. Sunrise (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that only one person really has ever become famous for proposing this idea, so a redirect is appropriate: [1]. jps (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Geez, I know that DNA breaks down (mutates) over time, but this is akin to alchemy... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through the bio now as well, though I guess some reverts might be pending. The list of his works could probably be trimmed further. Also, in relation to this topic, I came across the Secret Life of Plants article which could also use some work. Sunrise (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been an issue for at least three years: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_28#The_secret_life_of_plants_-_chris_bird jps (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The redirect/merge seems like the best solution. Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

THe redirect's not bad. I'll note there's a few people even today still writing (obscure and seldom-read) papers arguing for this stuff. They seem to be camped out on the edge of the cold-fusion/LENR field; they're the lunatic fringe's lunatic fringe. (Jean-Paul Biberian, V.I. Vysotskii and A.A. Kornilova are three currently active names I was able to come up with. Nevertheless, unless they (or others) are notable and noteworthy in their own right and for this specific topic, there's no reason to fiddle with the redirect.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

List of alleged aircraft–UFO incidents and near misses

List of alleged aircraft–UFO incidents and near misses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The majority of this article is unsourced or sourced to fringe sites e.g. "ufologie.patrickgross.org". Does this topic have sufficient notability for a list? Any alleged incidents covered in reliable sources could be included at list of reported UFO sightings - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest a merge and a close examination of the sources, since the list seems less than totally reliable. For one, it claims sightings over the "Zuiderzee" in 1942. However, the Zuiderzee ceased to exist in 1932, when the Afsluitdijk was completed. Kleuske (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged aircraft–UFO incidents and near misses - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

100% agreement with Kleuske - and I said as much on the AFD. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Meditation cancer cures

• Ainslie Meares (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Ian Gawler (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Ainslie Meares is actually quite notable (though you wouldn't know that from the current article's sourcing). The current article has some fringe issues (e.g. "A very angry Meares, demanded that she revert to his procedures and his procedures alone. Soon her cancers were, once again, in full remission.")
Relatedly, Ian Gawler had some association with Meares, and claims meditation can treat cancer. There've been some contested edits to this article (historically, and recently). More eyes could help. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well over half the Meares article is basically an essay based on his own writing, and I have removed it. No doubt this will be challenged. It read like a very bad essay on Curezone or something. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Villa Dunardi

Villa Dunardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A fringe-POV-slanted article about a non-notable Italian villa. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a lot of arugments on the talkpage and in the recent edit history about this particular biography and how exactly he should be characterized and how the beliefs he promotes in his books should be outlined. These beliefs range from creationism to 9/11-Trutherism to laetrile-cancer-cure-promotion to chemtrail-paranoia. Warning, Callanecc has imposed a very strict 1RR rule on the article.

jps (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's also been a lot going on with some previous history at the article and this board [2] for those here who either haven't seen it yet or don't remember. Some actions there might be better brought up at WP:AE in terms of behavior related to fringe topics, so just be mindful there's been some talk of that as well at [3]. More editors experienced in fringe topics, especially within BLPs would be helpful. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Seconded. One editor, Atsme, who is generally a delightful person, seems fixated on the idea that recent studies (mainly from a single group in China) invalidate the consensus view that laetrile is quackery, and validate Griffin's thesis in his book World Without Cancer, to the effect that amygdalin is rich in a vitamin, B17, lack of which causes cancer, and that the medical establishment suppresses knowledge of this (and the consequential curative properties of laetrile) in order to protect its income. I could really do with someone who has much greater reserves of tact and diplomacy than I, to explain the realities of Wikipedia policy on fringe medical ideas and conspiracy theories. Frankly, I think we'd be better off without the article. There are virtually no mainstream sources, though he is popular with websites like whale.to, mercola.com, Natural News, David Icke's forums, even Stormfront. Most of his books and "films" (none, I think, with any theatrical release) are self-published, those that are not are published by the John Birch Society. Mainstream sources tend not to bother looking at Truthers who advocate chemtrails and sundry other silliness. I think it's deletable, but no doubt this would be as unpopular as mentioning that he's known mainly for conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this person even notable enough for an article? I know that Glenn Beck has promoted him, but that alone isn't enough to establish notability. He's off-handedly mentioned in a few academic treatises documenting far-right-wing ideology and conspiracy theories, but nothing rising to the level of WP:BIO's exhortation to "significant" coverage. jps (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Dudley Dorito

Dudley Dorito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Whimsical article, indeed, but I wonder if it is worthy of standalone coverage. Thoughts?

jps (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wolverhampton Express & Star certainly loved the story. Simonm223 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

REDIRECTed to UFO sightings in the United Kingdom. Reports in a local paper only are not sufficient for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

UFORM

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFORM.

Comment if you will.

jps (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Pokotia Monolith

Definitely needs eyes, just had to revert some serious fringe stuff. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Noting that that's the 2nd new editor in the last few days. I can't find any mentions of this outside the fringe. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the JAAVSO doing publishing archaeology monographs? That is WAAY outside of the scope of their journal. Perhaps someone should e-mail them and see what's up. It's kinda out of the ordinary. jps (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit odd, but on the other hand, what else do we have that is even vaguely an RS? Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Chip Coffey Comment

See Talk:Chip Coffey. I noticed an editor created some draft revisions in their sandbox, but the sandbox was blanked by another editor due to "WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP violations". I've looked over the deleted sandbox draft - I do see that a Criticism section had been added - but can't find any undue weight or BLP vios. Am I missing something? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Eliza Jane Scovill

An RfC has been started on whether to include the credentials of a post mortem report written by an AIDS denialist. Scovill was the daughter of Christine Maggiore who did not treat her Scovill for HIV, and the office autopsy showed a HIV related cause of death. Maggiore asked fellow denialist Al-Bayati to write a report (which concluded this was not a HIV-related death); the question of the RfC is whether or not to include his qualifications in this article. Further input welcome. Yobol (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Barney and Betty Hill

Barney and Betty Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article reads like copy from an episode of Unsolved Mysteries. Can we have someone go through and eliminate the sensationalism and unverified stuff?

jps (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The article seems to have been moved (by copy - and - paste, so that its history did not get moved), without any discussion that I can find, from Betty and Barney Hill abduction. The associated talk page was not moved, and is still at Talk:Betty and Barney Hill abduction. Cardamon (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch. Tagging it for history merging. Kolbasz (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Tbilisi-sighting

Tbilisi-sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aside from a WP:MOS-violating title, the article seems like it probably shouldn't exist, but I thought I'd ask here first.

jps (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A tiny bit of news coverage, not enough for its own article, so redirected to UFO sightings in Russia.

But Tbilisi is in Georgia. jps (talk)

Moved to UFO sightings in Belarus - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

List of observations of solar and lunar transits of unknown objects

Now may you please review List of observations of solar and lunar transits of unknown objects? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That list looks marginally okay to me, though the sourcing for some could be improved. There should be some acknowledgment that in the days before image capture, these reports were all unverifiable. Distant birds and even insects can cause peculiar transits for eyepiece observing. jps (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. Its creator has a history of making these weird agglomeration and odd articles, and I don't see how these things have anything much to do with one another. Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Article reads like someone was trying to put a Fortean spin on the topic, however I have no way of knowing if this is actually a notable part of astronomy or not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• I removed the unreferenced ones, those referenced to Fort (not a reliable source for this kind of article), and one self-published reference. What's left is primary-sourced and doesn't really establish importance IMO. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

UFO Update

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO Update

jps (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

List of paranormal magazines

List of paranormal magazines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does this title sound to you like it's magazines published in another dimension?

Anyhoo, I think that it only fair that we include magazines like Skeptical Inquirer in such a list. Don't you?

jps (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Two responses.

1) Sure, as that magazine relates to the paranormal.

2) More important, though, is maybe considering whether to perhaps just delete the article altogether. As it is, I am not seeing that there are any clearly established independent sources which support the inclusion of the entries already listed, which raises both serious WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SYNTH issues. Maybe the best option would be to include it in the article if the article is found to survive AfD, which at this point is to my eyes a very open question. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How do I find out ... ?

If D. Ullman is banned, restricted or otherwise sanctioned by or from wikipedia? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#DanaUllman_banned. It's not too hard to do a simple search for it, is it? -A1candidate 17:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks A1c, I initially thought you'd done something useful for the first time, but no, that would be too much to expect. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dullman has been topic banned from homeopathy, broadly construed, for over five years. He makes very occasional appearances to pity himself and encourage fellow travelers. Best to ignore him. 2600:1008:B102:5115:B81A:B4AB:F712:98A9 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)