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:

Anthony Watts (blogger)

HOUSEKEEPING NOTE - This is part of a debate at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) which spilled over to other threads including

• WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Anthony Watts (blogger)
• WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Anthony Watts (blogger)
• WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Anthony Watts (blogger)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

High-quality scholarly sources that non-trivially discuss this person's blog have characterized it as climate change denialism, obviously a fringe view. [Edit: See the seven sources in the opening sentence of this revision.] However since it is also called a "skeptic" blog by some popular magazines and newspapers -- as well as by some scholarly articles as a synonym for denialism (explained here) -- we have the problem of a fringe view being portrayed as non-fringe via the context-free use of the word "skeptic". The allusion to scientific skepticism is unfortunate, and indeed there is a source that specifically contrasts the blog with scientific skepticism.

It has hitherto been difficult convincing some editors that a fringe-related article should make use of the high-quality scholarly sources available. Instead, editors have been counting the number of newspapers and other sources that use the term "skeptic". Manul ~ talk 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

But you're not arguing that we should make use of high-quality scholarly sources, now are you? Anyone can Google "denial" and find the results that they are looking for. Please see Confirmation bias. What we need is an objective random sampling of high-quality sources to see what they actually say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And no, it's not difficult to convincing some other editors. In fact, it's extremely easy. All you have to do is provide an objective random sampling of high-quality sources which backup this POV. But you have neglected to do so. Here's an actual example of an objective, random-sampling of reliable sources.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Why must it be either-or? In cases where there is not an overwhelming preponderance of one usage over the other it is best to state both. Something like "Some sources (A, B, and C) characterize the site as 'denialist' while others (D, E, and F) say it is 'skeptical', and G distinguishes 'skepticism' in this context from scientific skepticism." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not even close. I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journals, and here are the results:

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size). But based on these results, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
3. Science - 1 Source
4. Denier - 0 Sources

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

These sources are high-end mainstream sources but not "high-quality scholarly sources" as mentioned by Manul. Manul, can you give specific examples? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources are in the opening sentence of this revision. Searching through mainstream independent sources in Google Scholar -- even searching explicitly for "skeptic"/"skepticism" -- every one I've seen regards the blog as climate change denialism (again see this thread). We care about identifying the fringe view of climate change denialism, in whatever terminology it takes. Making that identification prominent is part of WP:NPOV.

In the past I have pointed to WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." This is especially true for scientific topics. There is little indication that some editors have apprehended this principle, as we see e.g. foxnews.com being promoted over scholarship again. Note foxnews.com and others aren't necessarily in contradiction with scholarly sources; they just aren't discussing WUWT from a scholarly perspective. Manul ~ talk 02:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What about a formulation like "typically described as 'skeptical' in the mainstream press but as 'denialist' in the academic literature"? I think AQFN is broadly correct about the press (though some of those sources are a bit dodgy, e.g., American Thinker) and this deserves mention alongside the academic view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems like key ideas are being missed. This thread I keep mentioning is about how even scholarly sources sometimes use "climate skepticism" to refer to climate change denialism. We care about identifying the phenomenon of climate change denialism, not about identifying a word. We have no independent sources saying that WUWT is just a science blog promoting scientific skepticism. Most likely none exist. We even have a source that explicitly divorces WUWT from scientific skepticism.

Suppose we juxtaposed them, ...a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as supporting climate change denialism, and that is also called "skeptical". What would this convey to the reader? There would be the implied suggestion that these are opposing viewpoints, when our sources say that they are the same. We might be suggesting scientific skepticism, which is contrary to at least one source.

There is every indication that this is only about avoiding the word "denialism". Apparently it is like the terms pseudoscience and pseudohistory -- scholars use them, but they are viscerally hated by proponents of works so labeled. If "climate change contrarianism" or "climate change renegades" were used everywhere in the literature then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. I once cited a Nature article that used contrarianism, but there were no takers. The offer is still out there. Manul ~ talk 06:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"Contrarianism" is not sufficient or accurate.

Here is a source[2] characterizing the blog as "denialist", and I'm sure there are more.

And here's an even better one, by notable climatologist Michael E. Mann.[3]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I now see that Mann's book had already been used, but somewhat strangely not for the material most relevant to this issue, which I've now added.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

1. Skeptic - 3 times.
2. Meteorologist - 2 times
3. Conservative - 2 times
4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
6. Science - 1 time
7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
8. Denier - 0 times

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think by excluding papers that are behind paywalls, you have effectively eliminated the most reliable sources. Remember there is WP:Resource request] for you to use if there are reliable sources you cannot get access to. Please try this again. We have, for example, a number of excellent sources that are mentioned on the talkpage that you don't include here at all. By contrast, it seems that you've included a number of sources in your "random sample" that aren't as good as the ones mentioned on the talkpage. jps (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with WP:Resource Request request, but I will check it out and report back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed resolution for Watts

Here is an easy compromise: "a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as promoting climate change denialism, also referred to as climate skepticism or climate contrarianism."[4] This is well-sourced and covers all the bases: we accurately characterize WUWT, and we address the terminology that has generated so much confusion. (More on terminology in this thread.) Manul ~ talk 07:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry. We're not putting fringe viewpoints into the lead. This is a WP:BLP for heaven's sake. At most, it belongs somewhere in the article text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you clarify what in that statement is a "fringe viewpoint" and how you made that determination according to WP:FRINGE? jps (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like clarification as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to:

• First, in order to answer the question of what is WP:FRINGE, we need to examine what the mainstream viewpoint is. Based on two random samplings of reliable sources, the vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources (i.e. the mainstream viewpoint) describe this blog as "skeptic", not "denier". Even if you combine both random samples, not a single source describes this blog as "denier". Now, I'm not saying that there aren't such sources, but the apparent majority of sources describe the blog as "skeptic", not "denier". Sources which describe this blog as "denier" are so fringe, that out of two random sample sets, not a single source makes such a claim.
• Second, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we don't describe someone as a "denier" unless it's widely used by reliable sources. There is no evidence that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources. But there is strong evidenice that "denier" is not widely used by reliable sources.

To put it another way, if we have 10 sources about something, and 9 say one thing, and 1 says something else, you don't cite the oddball source (i.e the fringe minority source), you cite the majority.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no way that your original research can be used to determine what is or is not fringe. You need sources to prove that. If you write a paper that is published and can be used to prove your point, then we can consider it. But your claim that your samplings were "random" and that this helps you figure out determine what is fringe or not is not how we determine what is or isn't fringe.

The majority of reliable sources, as demonstrated above, do describe Watts' blog as advocating what we at Wikipedia call global warming denialism. Even many of the sources you list do that.

I call shenanigans and ask you to stop misusing wikijargon in POV-pushing agenda-driven ways.

jps (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@jps: I'm afraid that you don't seem to understand what WP:OR is, and the claim that "The majority of reliable sources, as demonstrated above" is laughable given all the above sources support the exact opposite of what you claim. As for "POV-pushing agenda-driven", I'd love to know what agenda you think I'm pushing. Here's my agenda: I believe that we should follow WP:NPOV and treat fringe claims per WP:FRINGE. Again, if 9 sources say one thing, and 1 source says something else, you go with the mainstream viewpoint, not the fringe/insignificant minority. And I'm sorry, but if you can't actually put forth a rationale argument why should ignore reliable sources, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, there's little more I can say here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems is that in the academic literature "skepticism" and "denial" often are used synonymously with regard to climate change. So trying to draw a distinction between the two is artificial. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Much of this discussion is a red herring. I think the main question we should try to answer should be whether it is appropriate to identify the blog as being sympathetic or supporting global warming denialism. I think the answer to that is clearly, "yes." How this get said is a question of style rather than substance. jps (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good. Then perhaps you will back off your insistence to violate WP:WTW by not using a contentious label unless widely used by reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The attempt to use "random samples" and other arbitrary measures to dismiss the scholarly consensus on the matter is not compliant with policy.

Unless an exhaustive survey of sources is carried out in order to determine WEIGHT, DUE/UNDUE, etc., it is readily apparent that climate change denialism or the like is a frequent characterization applied by scholarly and scientific RS. Accordingly, including said characterization clearly does not violate any Wikipedia policy; in fact, it is practically compulsory according to RS and NPOV. I agree that it is a question of style rather than substance.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by AQFK's unwillingness to acknowledge that the sources point to global warming denialism as being the primary ideology that the blog supports. WP:Source counting is not the right way forward. Reading and understanding the sources is. jps (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@jps: I don't think you've read WP:Source counting very carefully. It's just an essay (which carries no weight) and you've mistaken the horse for the cart. Specifically, it cautions against using sources to bolster an argument. It does not caution against using sources to form an argument. Surely, you see the difference, right? Let me be perfectly explicit:

• If you form a conclusion and then try to find sources that validate that conclusion, that's bad.
• If you find empirical evidence first, and then base your conclusions on the evidence, that's good.

Surely, you see the difference, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Can you please tell me where there was an "attempt to use "random samples" and other arbitrary measures to dismiss the scholarly consensus on the matter"? This is a very bold statement, so I hope you have evidence to back up such a serious accusation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@AQFK: You have used the random samplings in a manner such as to impart authority thereto, and ignored the peer-reviewed book by a bonafide climatologist, Mann. Arzel has referred to a personal dispute between Watts and Mann, but has not responded to my query for specifics or sources, and PG has arbitrarily stated that Arzel is correct. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: I used random sampling in an attempt to provide an objective, non-biased answer to the fundamental question that we all need to answer: Is the term "denier" widely used by reliable sources? Even if a single source was omitted by random chance, this was never about a single source. This is about the term being widely used by reliable sources. So if an argument hinges on a single source, or even a small subset of sources, we still defer to the overall majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice a specific request. However, it is duly noted. Mann has made specific attacking statement against Watts, it is in his book. Watts has made specific statements about Mann, there is really no reason to go into depth as it is pretty clear. Arzel (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear because you are attempting to arbitrarily declare that Mann is unreliable because he lacks a "neutral presentation", etc. If you want to withdraw that position, fine. Please confirm, or add links to the detailed points related to the position.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You are continuing to avoid the main point which is that WUWT is a blog that is sympathetic to global warming denialism. How we explain that to the reader is what we need to decide. jps (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction. It is a blog which is skeptical of man's contribution to global warming, and the actual impact of global warming, and the prediction of what the future warming may be. Arzel (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Artzel: You have repeatedly ignored questions regarding your allegations about the Mann source. This is the last time I'm going to ask you to either retract your statement or support it with specific citations. If you don't I'm going to raise you conduct at an appropriate forum, such as AE or the present ArbCom case, very soon.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources don't disagree with your characterization (except some deny that it is explicitly skeptical) but you can see our article on global warming denialism covers these claims and includes them as part of the overall ideology. jps (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Watts promotes authors who believe the moon landings were staged (John Costella) and one who is active in searching for the Loch Ness Monster (Henry Bauer). Plus a handful of other people who insist global warming cannot be real because God would never have designed the earth to be adversely impacted by human behaviour. There's really nothing skeptical about his blog. — TPX 16:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a FRINGE matter

@Manul:, This isn't a FRINGE issue. We are not currently debating the substance of what Watts says about climate science like we do for other people at List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming. Instead, the question is whether we can include fact that some RSs use the label "denialist" when characterizing Watts' views and blog.

	The Speaker	What is Said	Applicable question	Relevant to current debate?
WRONG ISSUE	Watts himself	how climate works	Are those views of climate science WP:FRINGE?	No
RIGHT ISSUE	Others	how Watts and blog should be characterized	Is reporting some call him "denialist" a WP:BLP violation?	Yes, it's relevant, but no its not a BLP violation

We are debating the last line in this table. That's a BLP issue, not a fringe one, even if another editor is trying hard to count Google hits and frame the issue as a "FRINGE" matter. The applicable policy is WP:Biographies of living people#Public figures. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There's also a question of how to link and describe climate change denial to the article. This is an issue because it involves the advocacy of fringe theories. jps (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have repeatedly made clear that the issue is about characterizing the blog, not the person,[5][6] and my edits have reflected this. I have never inserted "denier" or "denialist" into the article. Every discussion that I have begun on the topic, here and elsewhere, is about the blog, not the person.

WP:PSCI (part of NPOV) is certainly involved because the blog promotes a fringe view, and it is against the NPOV policy to characterize it otherwise. WP:FRINGE is the explanatory guideline for the PSCI section of NPOV. See for instance Gavin Menzies' work being characterized as pseudohistory in the lead, which is the result of NPOV (specifically PSCI) being applied to a BLP. Also see BLPs that deal with pseudoscience. NPOV and BLP must both be upheld. Manul ~ talk 16:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing

• statements of pseudoscientific fact, with
• statements of value judgments.

PSCI could only potentially apply if we say something like According to Watts' blog, climate change is caused by XYZ. Your edits don't do that. Instead, your edits add value judgments, such as his blog "is characterized as promoting climate change denialism", the operative word being "IS", as in "is only". NPOV requires inline attribution of value judgments so that they read only as fact that so-and-so holds those views. Now if we were reporting what Watts says about some aspect of climate science, then I'm right there with ya, saying FRINGE controls. But so far you've been talking about value judgments, and it appears you want to tar and feather WUWT with value judgments that it is FRINGE crap. It's only a FRINGE matter if you report on one of his blogs' specific pseudoscience theories. Then and only then we contend with FRINGE, on a (crap)theory-by-(crap)theory basis. For sweeping value judgments applied to his overall site..... that's just not a FRINGE issue.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC) PS BTW, your example, Gavin Menzies, is distinguished in two ways. First, at that article the value judgments have in-line attribution to unnamed historians (though one could look up the names in the listed citations). Your edits lack inline attribution. Secondly, there appears to be no weighty RSs that disagree with the historians' value judgment. Are there credible weighty RSs that characterize WUWT as not-fringe? That's a question with no answer since the words "Denial" and "skeptic" are close to useless, due to conflation and ongoing arguments how (or if) they differ. When ALL the weighty RSs come together and do that unambiguously, then we can revisit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Remember the original wording was "scientists and scholars have characterized as promoting climate change denialism".[7] I removed "scientists and scholars" because of WP:WEASEL, even though I prefer having "scientists and scholars". The Menzies article may have a WEASEL problem, too, unless a source actually says something to the effect of "historians have categorized his work as pseudohistory". Perhaps this is a question for NPOVN.

I am glad you asked, "Are there credible weighty RSs that characterize WUWT as not-fringe?" That is crux. I have seen no such sources. We have a source distinguishing WUWT from scientific skepticism and sources equating climate skepticism with climate denialism in the context of WUWT. Considering that WUWT opposes the scientific consensus on climate change (everyone seems to agree on that point), and considering how overwhelming the consensus is, we wouldn't expect to find independent mainstream sources saying that WUWT is just another science blog practicing scientific skepticism. If there is such a source, then article would need to change completely. Manul ~ talk 19:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You're still not talking about a concept to which FRINGE applies. This is a BLP issue. If we get into "Its the sun, stupid" details, then FRINGE will come into play. Until then, wrong venue. It's BLP territory. (Note to self.... you screwed up spending so much time arguing theory before completing your lit review.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the vast preponderance of the independent sources that have written about the blog agree that it accommodates/is sympathetic to/is supportive of climate change denial. Do you a) agree with this assessment? and b) think that we should provide a way for the reader to learn about this in the article? jps (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of "he has been described as an advocate of climate change denial by (sources)." That gets around describing him as a "denialist," which might have BLP problems (if the sources don't explicitly say that), but does provide a way to provide a relevant link and describe his positions. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh, that strays close to WP:WEASEL. The sources show the reality pretty clearly: Watt's Up is a climate denialist blog, cited by climate denialists as a source for climate denialist talking points. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Happily we have a quote from one of the leading credentialled experts in climate science in the world, which identifies Watt's Up as having "overtaken climateaudit as the leading climate change denial blog", which provides a suitably authoritative characterisation without needing to resort to weasel words. We also have evidence that he has received substantial funding from climate denialist group the Heartland Institute. This is not a difficult call, we have the sources that support an unambiguous statement. The claim that this is not a WP:FRINGE matter is sophistry. Of course it is. He is known almost exclusively as an advocate of a fringe view in respect of climate change: he is, as sources state unambiguously, a climate change denier, and a vociferous and prominent one at that. Fringe applies here. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@JzG/help:, what Watts says may or may not be a fringe matter, but how other people characterize him is a question of fact Do the other people characterize him that way or not? and falls under BLP for public figures. Understanding the nature of the issue and applying the right guideline is hardly "sophistry" (definition, the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. I thank you for your assumption of good faith. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And this source is being overlooked. Organized Climate Change Denial, Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright, The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford university Press, 2011

"…conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine. While a few are hosted by contrarian scientists…, the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)…" --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

More help would be appreciated

Those of you that have the time, please help out. Right now, the lede of the article states that it is simply a "climate" and "weather" blog without identifying its agenda at all. I am serially reverted regardless of how I try to let the reader know about its ideological bent. jps (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It is very obviously a climate change denial blog. Only an idiot would state otherwise. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia is an idiot? Because we apparently can't bring ourselves to say that or even a decent euphemism for that. jps (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That's because climate deniers who don't like the fact, keep removing it. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We probably need to take some of them to WP:AE. The conversation is really not going well on the talkpage. Just getting people to agree that we should describe what the blog actually does has been almost impossible to do. The arguments seem to be focused more on what particular words are used in this or that source rather than what the content of the article should be. At the same time, sources such as Fox News and The Weekly Standard are being offered as being reliable in spite of the obvious fact that these sources are known to be partisan in favor of the political bent of Watts. jps (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Reconstruction Era

I took a peek at the wiki on the Reconstruction Era after doing some reading on the topic, and was surprised by some of the assertions as well as the prominence given to historical views that are no longer common (like those of the Dunning School) and that might be viewed by some as racist. See my comment on the article's talk page: Talk:Reconstruction_Era#General_Bias?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wswanniii (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC−2)

Draft:Liquid crystal water

This draft article seems to be asserting as fact the existence of "a phase of water that does not wholly fit into the categories of solid, liquid, or gas, but rather is best described as a liquid crystal". I'd be interested to know what mainstream science has to say on the subject... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in response to the editor's request at Talk:Gilbert Ling#Connection to Liquid Crystal Water, it sure seems like mainstream science doesn't have anything to say on the topic. While the editor (User:HailTheWarpCore, who self-identifies as a "Collector and tester of fringe theories" on his userpage) presumably means well, his draft is thoroughly uncritical in summarizing the minuscule number of extant, favorable, low-impact primary sources, and completely fails to place this minor fringe theory in any sort of context. The theory is so far out in left field (and espoused by so few people) that there isn't any substantive independent commentary or criticism, which should be a red flag for whether or not this theory can clear even a very low notability threshold. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Testing and investigating fringe theories is a hobby of mine, yes, but I really don't think this is best categorized as such. To speak to the validity of the research for a moment: I realize the current dearth of research on the matter, and the fact that there are less scrupulous people trying to hock LCW for some magical panacea, but I've tried to sidestep that matter entirely (I do however plan to make a section dedicated to the matter in the future, though it seems the drafting process has removed a commented out section for "Controversy") in the interest of maintaining a NPOV. I'm also not entirely certain that it is "out of left field", as the experiments to validate it's existence are very easily reproducible (the fact that I was able to do so while working in a nanophysics lab during undergrad is a testament to this, and what got me interested in the subject), and the primary font of research is the well respected University of Washington Bioengineering department. I have also collected as many reputable sources as possible (Nature, Physical Review, Journal of Chemical Physics, etc) while only citing non-peer reviewed sources as a way of establishing that a certain scientist researches the topic. Perhaps the intro should be rewritten to make it more clear that this is a fairly novel topic?HailTheWarpCore (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi HailTheWarpCore, welcome to the FTN! The biggest red flag I see is the connection to Gerald Pollack who seems to be inching himself way out on a limb (I know him from his perennial appearances at Electric Universe conferences). The proposal that water exhibits peculiar "emergent" properties is one that has been made by a lot of different and more-or-less independent claimants -- one of the most famous being polywater. The question we need to answer is, where are the independent sources? I think we might be able to scrounge up enough to write an article on "claims of emergent properties of water" with references to polywater, water memory, and those of Masaru Emoto, but we would need some good sources which connect them all lest we fall into the WP:SYNTH trap. jps (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi jps, I do agree there should be a page for the claims of emergent properties of water, but if you'll look at this, this, this, and this(to name a few), you'll see that the proposed liquid crystal structure of water is a far cry from polywater or water memory, the primary difference being that these claims are readily reproducible. I understand that water research as a whole has been stigmatized by polywater, but I think there is sufficient independent research on this topic. (iirc, polywater was never reproducible, and it turned out the original scientists simply had dirty equipment?)HailTheWarpCore (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think what you are referencing here is a coherent programatic claim. The idea that "liquid crystal water" exists is not being categorically declared in any of those articles specifically, though there are fringe-claims which may be obliquely referred to. The problem is that I think you may already be synthesizing a lot of these ideas together and I don't see the "independent research" you are claiming. The rejection of polywater and water memory happened because there was sufficient independent scrutiny of the topics that caused outsiders to carefully consider and ultimately debunk the claims. WP:REDFLAG would have us not report further rabbit holes of this sort (and yes, that includes Nature articles which have been notorious in the past for including certain levels of credulity towards outlandish water-based claims such as water memory). What we are likely looking at is a case of cold fusion where ongoing research is hobbling along by a small community of emergent water believers, but the rest of the wider community simply ignores these cases. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is in no position to right the great wrongs of the mainstream ignoring Pollack and the others who make rather outlandish claims about water behavior and so we cannot accept articles on such a subject without sufficient independent documentation. So far, you haven't really shown us any independent documentation. These are all just researchers who are connected in one way or another with these credulous "emergent water" groups. You need to find an independent physicist/chemist who is willing to take their arguments seriously. Even a good debunking would suffice to make the case for fringe notability. Right now, I'm sorry to say, I don't see that we have something that is notable as the idea is only sourced to primary sources without outside notice. jps (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I see the problem, and I apologize, you are right, I do need to find more secondary sources. Would something like this or thisbe in the correct domain? (Review article, not a primary experiment) I'm sure I could find more to establish a better secondary source library. Also, by "independent research" I meant to say that the research on the subject was coming from multiple different unrelated labs, not all from the same source. HailTheWarpCore (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Those two additional sources both also appear to be primary sources. What we would like to see would be a good review article that references all of these (it doesn't necessarily need to be peer-reviewed, in fact, though that would obviously be preferred). I'm also not entirely convinced that these labs are "unrelated". I think there may be a pretty easy to follow connection back to Pollack for many of these claims. It's kinda like cold fusion. (Additionally, there may be some rather prosaic mainstream claims which are not quite so outlandish -- more on the level of trying to explain certain aspects of capillary action that are not quite understood). jps (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, first link was a typo, meant to link to this. The second one definitely a review though, it begins with "In this work we review the literature for possible confirmation of a phenomenon..." In regards to linking back to Pollack, you might be right, but how many degrees of freedom are required before a lab is not considered "connected"? Admittedly, I just looked at the author's names, and made sure that they weren't all the same or appearing in each other's work.HailTheWarpCore (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a review as much as it is a meta-analysis which is a different beast. They are trying to tie together a lot of disparate claims and data to come to a conclusion that they want to have. What we need instead is a review of people who try to come to those conclusions. jps (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I see, so I need to find papers reviewing the referenced papers themselves, not the topic as a whole while citing the papers as evidence? (Sorry if this is elementary, I simply want to be as accurate as possible here)HailTheWarpCore (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to find someone who is willing to do the legwork of explaining what exactly these researchers are doing in the context of the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of water. This could be a paper (though I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a peer-reviewed paper on such a topic) or it could be some sort of sociology book or it could even be a blog-post or a popular science/skeptic discussion on a website or in a periodical. The key is to find recognition outside of the community of believers that this represents a novel idea that deserves attention. jps (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that before Wikipedia is to make bold assertions in its own voice claiming that "a phase of water that does not wholly fit into the categories of solid, liquid, or gas, but rather is best described as a liquid crystal" exists, we are going to need very strong sourcing indicating that the claim has been accepted by the scientific mainstream. Lacking such sources (which appear not to exist), we could only legitimately report it for what it is - an unrecognised claim made by a few specific researchers. Assuming that we report it at all. Wikipedia policy on notability clearly applies here, and if the only discussion of a fringe topic comes from the proponents, it isn't notable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you think would be a better wording? "LCW refers to the liquid crystal or colloidal phase of water" perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HailTheWarpCore (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 April 2015‎

We aren't going to assert that LCW refers to any actual property of water until mainstream science accepts the concept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It does appear that someone has by wp:SYN conflated the legitimate topic of liquid crystals with a great deal of nonsense. Without the conflation, I see no sign of wp:N.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no merit in this article nor any reason for it to be included. The LCW article misuses the term "phase" Phase is determined by temperature and pressure; so where on the phase diagram for water does LCW exist? The examples occur at room temperature and standard pressure, so LCW is not an undiscovered phase of water. It is liquid water, and the phenomena discussed in the examples are properties of liquid water.

The article is misleading in that it presents as magical and unexplained phenomena which are actually not unexplained: see surface tension, for example. Bulk liquid water becomes more ordered when the advantage of being ordered is greater than the cost. The advantage is enthalpy and the cost is entropy. Roches (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe it would fit as a mesophase between ice I and liquid water, as I think high temp brownian motion would severely disrupt this phenomenon, though this is just conjecture. For clarity, I have changed the use of phase to the more accurate term, state. Also, in regards to it nor meriting inclusion, where should this information then go if not it's own page? Should I draft up an addition to the properties of water page? HailTheWarpCore (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Where should it go? I would have to suggest (based on the complete lack of evidence that this supposed 'phase', 'state' or whatever of water has been taken even remotely seriously by mainstream science) that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the answer is 'nowhere'. It certainly can't go into our article on water per WP:WEIGHT: " the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As stated earlier, I am working on finding secondary sources for this phenomenon. HailTheWarpCore (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Article: Mae-Wan Ho

Mae-Wan Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In researching the above draft, I came across this article. Is this WP:FRINGEBLP worthy of inclusion? I don't know that this particular person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

jps (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable fringe academic who has been advocating some semi-Lamarckian like ideas for thirty odd years. I added many papers which criticize her work. Article should not be deleted in my opinion. Quack Hunter (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree article should be retained. Many sentences begin "Ho has..." (as is to be expected). This visually resembles "He has...", so I changed the second usage of "Ho" to "She". The change was purely for readability and nothing else is meant by it. Roches (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Despite the issues raised here Liquid crystal water has been moved to article space

Evidently the many comments made here have had no effect - and we now have an article asserting as fact that this supposed 'state of water' exists. Given the complete lack of evidence that the mainstream scientific community accepts the claim, or that it has even commented on it, I shall be nominating the article for deletion if the issues aren't addressed properly in the next few days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that there was no notification or indication on the draft itself or its talk page about the existence of this discussion, until a short while ago, AFC reviewers cannot be expected to smell out the existence of such discussions. In any case the submitter should have withdrawn their review submission when the issues were originally raised and not resubmitted until they were resolved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, as per here, it's been taken out of article space. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to delete drafts?

I am not very familiar with draft-space, but this article looks pretty hopeless to me as written (it's a lot of original research, to be frank). I think it probably should be removed from Wikipedia and it certainly has no chance of being made into article-space content in its current state. But I don't know what the rules are about deleting drafts. Anyone know?

jps (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well then: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Liquid crystal water. jps (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Splitting of the moon

A theological article although with what I think is a fringe aspect, see Talk:Splitting of the moon#Separate Article for the NASA dispute. As you can see, there's a suggestion that the NASA dispute be moved out of the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Do must Muslim scholars believe that the moon literally split in two? I have no sense for the sources on this. jps (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't answer the specific question of what most Muslim scholars believe. But I do know that between those who think it did happen, and those who see it as a prophecy, it seems to be pretty much accepted in the same way as some Christian prophecies are by Christians. This page from a recent reference work seems to indicate that the splitting of the moon is expected to happen before the end of time, not that it happened during Muhammad's life. But people have and have had arguments about when some of the events expected in the Christian Apocalypse are expected to happen or have happened. My guess, and it is a guess, unfortunately, is that it is generally now interpreted as a prediction, because of telescopes not showing much if any split for a few hundred years now, but it is probably not something that gets written about a lot, because there seems to have been some earlier belief that it had happened, and theologically has apparently been adjusted to reflect observable reality, like it often is regarding prophecies which don't happen as they are supposed to. Some Muslim fundamentalists probably believe it in the same way as some Christian fundamentalists believe whichever political leader of the time that we don't like is the Antichrist. But I seriously doubt it is the case that currently most Muslims believe it. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the plain point that the Moon has not physically split into two since its formation deserves at least a mention in the article. Whether it deserves an entire section is something we might quibble over. The source, however, that identifies this misconception I think is perfectly fine. jps (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Stella Lansing

Stella Lansing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Couldn't find anything about this lady or her films on wikipedia. Might be fraud, but notable [8] [9] [10] I guess. Logos (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Fraud or not, I cannot find anything that would justify a stand-alone article. I found a PubMed hit to an article in The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine Impact Factor & Information which was authored by Berthold E. Schwarz, but neither the journal or the author is reliable enough to elevate this to our notability standards. Is there an appropriate article that might be worthy of a redirect? - Location (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Berthold E. Schwarz had spent/invested his time more than anyother in investigating/publicizing this case. A redirect to Berthold E. Schwarz with a possible mention would suffice. Logos (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Is there a workable non-primary source that is reliable? - Location (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

None, other than Schwarz's paper/book, according to your search. Schwarz's paper/book does not count as primary (and/or unreliable). Even if it were, the needed source doesn't have to be non-primary according to WP:PRIMARY. Logos (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Schwarz's paper would be a primary source in Schwarz's article, and then, depending upon interpretation, WP:REDFLAG may apply. - Location (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth taking a look at Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, Ufos, Psychics, and Other Mysteries by CSICOP members Robert A. Baker and Joe Nickell. I think that would give us "secondary" and "reliable". - Location (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation is; the mention of Lansing case in Schwarz's article with Schwarz's paper as the source would not count as primary. It would be similar to WP:ANALYSIS, that is; "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.". More specifically, Lansing's account of the case counts as primary, and Schwarz's paper counts as secondary. Of course, there might be parts in Schwarz's paper which may be regarded as "primary", in accordance with the example stated in WP:PRIMARY: "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment". Logos (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There's another thing to consider when trying to decide about whether a source is worthy of inclusion in regards to fringe claims and that is the the independence of a source. In particular, I'm not convinced that Schwarz is fully independent of Lansing in the sense of being an objective researcher of her stuff. Arguing about whether a source is "primary" or "secondary" is less relevant than considering whether a particular source is reliably independent from the fringe belief itself. jps (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

One can argue that, WP:FRIND part of the WP:FRINGE guideline is not for including or excluding sources according to their independency rating, but for assessing/determining the notability and prominence of the subject/case at hand. If the only source about Lansing case had been Schwarz's paper, then the notability and prominence could be weak, even for a redirect and a brief mention. Since nobody is after a stand-alone article here, the sources mentioned in this discussion can secure a redirect and a brief mention, IMO. Logos (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see how citing Schwarz in his own article is not a primary source.[11] Who is judging his paper on Lansing to be worthy of inclusion there? - Location (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I was the one making that judgement, as diff points out. I still hold my argumentation/view about Schwarz's paper above, and think that no need to elaborate on further; as Schwarz's paper is not about himself but about Lansing. I haven't carried out a detailed search, but even the initial 3 sources were enough to establish the notability. The 1st source I mentioned has a reference to this guy Ivor_Grattan-Guinness concerning Lansing case, and Guinness's this book has enough material about Lansing case. Logos (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable to use a primary source once the importance of the material is determined by a reliable secondary source. In my opinion, Baker and Nickell are reliable and should also be cited in Schwarz article if you are going to mention Lansing. Regarding the first three sources you noted, I would like additional opinions on them as they look questionable to me. - Location (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you wish you can do yourself, as I think otherwise; that is Schwarz's paper is enough and is not primary to me. You might consider relocating all that LAnsing case into Thoughtography, as well. Logos (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas J. Devine

Thomas J. Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Friend and business associate of George H. W. Bush who resigned from the CIA in 1953. The article uses crap sourcing in attempt to link Big Oil to the assassination of JFK. The issues here are somewhat related to a previous discussion about the Harbinger Group, but on a smaller scale. This appears to be a BLP. Is there enough to bring this in line with Wikipedia's notability standards? - Location (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not that I can see, plus it really very heavily on primary sources (hint: the Mary Ferrell Archive is a research store of JFK assassination-related primary texts). Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Devine. jps (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Cotterell

Maurice Cotterell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person's views appear to be on the scientific fringe (e.g. claims that the Mayans predicted apocalypse caused by the sun reversing Earth's magnetic field). [12] Seems like we need to give much more weight to the mainstream view on this subject than what Cotterell thinks. Some secondary sources would also be nice. Everymorning talk 14:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've cut a lot from it. The text added by "Mysticdevon1" was copied word-for-word from Cotterall's website. It remains largely unsupported by independent citation. It also states that he won something called the "Voluntariado Cultural medal" from the president of Mexico. I can't find anything about this medal except in Cotterell's promotional material. The mixed English and Spanish in the medal's "name" is suspicious (what is a "voluntary" medal?). Paul B (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor claiming to be Cotterell is now saying that he wishes the article to be deleted. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Cotterell. Paul B (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Menas Kafatos

Menas Kafatos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like it was scrubbed by an online reputation company, this article uncritically promotes the WP:FRINGEBLP without acknowledging the highly fringe-nature of his publications and claims. Can we get some help on it?

jps (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

".. as there is a need for real dialogue between science, spirituality, and religion": kind of amateurish OR. Logos (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Even the version prior to the modifications by TheCapnPlanet reads like a resume. Logos (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So what's the best thing to do here? It seems pretty clear to me that the primary notability of this person is an advocacy of avante garde proposals that some might call quantum quackery while, to be honest, such proposals have had certain marginal influences in the philosophy of physics as well as, perhaps, the development of certain breakthrough research programs (Not sure how I feel about How the Hippies Saved Physics, but at the very least this is an idea that has not been dismissed outright). I think that much of what Kafatos is doing is benefitting from an alliance with Deepak Chopra and others who share that outlook, but I also see that he has a grounding in physics that is represented by the post he holds at Chapman University. Even if he didn't hold to some of the more wooly ideas he proposes, his appointment alone might be notable enough. On the other hand, it isn't clear to me he would have gotten this appointment without his connection to popularizing New Age synergy with quantum mechanics. Right now, our biography doesn't even hint at this tensions which makes it problematic, in my estimation. Sources are unfortunately quite thin on this account. Here's one: [13]. jps (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It may not deserve the time to be invested in digging. Having not read either one, the two books he co-authored with Robert Nadeau -who is a professor of English Talk:Robert_Nadeau_(science_historian)- can be seen as one of the many copies of popular-science pieces mimicking A Brief History of Time or earlier more notable ones. I don't think that an academic/scientist can focus on so many different areas of study; the only common point of which might be computational methods/tools. He is perhaps just a computational sciences scientist.

Chopra is not an all-knowing guy either; his education is in medical sciences, in the end. His quantum thing was just an unsuccessful speculation on the microcosmos. Logos (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible multiple account editing?

Resolved

 – Capn isn't the same Capn

Askahrc (talk · contribs)

TheCapnPlanet (talk · contribs)

I see a lot of similarities between these accounts and wonder if the person behind them is being paid as a reputation whitewasher for Chopra's organization.

jps (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks poorly sourced and overly promotional. Could you point out the problematic editing? --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

First are these users pinged with the user template? @Askahrc: and @TheCapnPlanet:. There is an obvious similarity of the signature of Askahrc and the username of TheCapnPlanet and I don't think that the user who wrote much of the Kafatos article was a "newbie". The subjects of interest between the two overlap. TheCapnPlanet may just be a throwaway account. Not sure. Something is fishy, but perhaps it's not worth discussing here. There was already a sockpuppetry case with Askahrc that was closed. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc. That's all I got. Not sure what to do here. jps (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it best not to look into SOCK and COI accusations without very good reasons and strong evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if TheCapnPlanet had done a great deal of editing prior to creation of the account.

So what are the content problems? --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Ronz and jps Hi, this is the owner of TheCapnPlanet (talk · contribs) account. I am not sure how to properly comment on things, so I do apologize if I'm doing it incorrectly. While in college, I used to work for Menas Kafatos and was tasked with updating his Wikipedia page a while back. I did my best to do it according to Wikipedia standards and read a lot of the documentation, especially relating to living persons and tried to keep my edits as neutral as I could. As for the other Askahrc (talk · contribs) account, I have no idea who that is. I did see the mention of Cap'n in his profile page, but that's about the only similarity I saw (FYI The reason I chose my username was because of my favorite cereal growing up as a kid, Capn Crunch, and one of my favorite cartoons, Captain Planet). Thanks for taking the time to ensure the integrity of the content on Wikipedia - my hat is off to you. Let me know if I can be of further assistance in resolving this matter.

Thanks, TheCapnPlanet. It appears that the similarities of the names was just a case of an unfortunate coincidence, then. Might I ask, when you say you were "tasked" with updating his Wikipedia page, how exactly did that occur? jps (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the other staff members suggested it would be a good idea to update his page. I agreed because it was lacking in detail and outdated - I don't think it even had a picture until the other staff member added one. I had experience editing wiki's before (I made one for my old job at a helpdesk using mediawiki), and volunteered to update the page. I knew it wasn't supposed to be a LinkedIn profile or resume, but rather an unbiased source of information, and tried to keep it that way as best I could. I used Neil DeGrasse Tyson's and Brian Greene's pages as inspiration. --TheCapnPlanet

Thanks for the explanations!

So we've an inexperienced Wikipedia editor (but with experience in other wikis) with a slight coi. I'm not seeing any scrubbing with a quick skim of the edit history. Maybe it just never dealt properly with the FRINGE issues? Can we get a list of what those issues are, and of any pov- and fringe-violating edits if I'm just not seeing them? --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussing these above. jps (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As of May 10, 2015, this article doesn't contain anything I really find objectionable. I changed one sentence that asserted that there is a need for dialogue between science and spirituality in Wikipedia's voice. Overall, I think the current article is a good one for a living researcher. The presentation of selected awards and publications is particularly good and concise. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any undue weight on fringe theories. That is, the article provides objective biographical details and doesn't make an effort to change a reader's opinions. Roches (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Jack Ruby

Jack Ruby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am wondering if someone can take a look at Jack Ruby#Alleged conspiracies. Lots of primary and fringe sources, and WP:WEIGHT appears to be an issue in that the section is about 50% of the article. (By comparison, Lee Harvey Oswald#Other investigations and dissenting theories directs people to the main article about conspiracy theories.) Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Acting Witan of Mercia

Acting Witan of Mercia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think that is an article which could do with some attention. --_nonsense ferret 00:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a bit of citation overkill, but very few obvious internet sources to assist in fact-checking. Probably a good idea to start by weeding out those that don't meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable. - Location (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The entire article consists of a synthesis from primary sources. There is virtually no coverage of this fringe group, and what direct coverage there is, seems to me to be largely dismissive. I was born in Mercia and used to work at the King Offa pub, this group is somewhat less significant than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for input - please also see the directly related Jeff Kent (author) - previously nominated (by me) and deleted at AfD. I do not know what its prospects might be now --_nonsense ferret 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you post the link to the previous Afd? - Location (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

previous discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Jeff Kent (author) --_nonsense ferret 11:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyway to determine if the article is essentially the same as before? The claim to notability is as an academic, musician, author, and historian. Despite the vast number of sources given, I don't see anything that would pass WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC, or WP:AUTHOR. - Location (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign Mercia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This one is related to Acting Witan of Mercia and has questionable sourcing (i.e. primary sources and book sources that do not mention the organization). This reliable source shows what is likely the extent of coverage that should be in Wikipedia. - Location (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed Sovereign Mercia but it should possibly go to AfD. I also removed mention of these two groups from Mercia where they were self-sourced, as I consider the mentions promotional and WP:UNDUE. I was promptly reverted by the creator of the article Sovereign Mercia. I've removed them again. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And they are back. The argument being used is 'revert to longstanding version' which is true in a sense, the editor reverting me now is the editor who added them in 2008. I've suggested on the talk page that they and a few others be removed, added to see also where appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Another editor revised the text, adding a source that says "There is also a website dedicated to the creation of a sovereign state of Mercia (Sovereign Mercia website)." Hardly a reason for its mention and not something that can be used to meet WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

And now I am at my PC and not my phone, it was the original editor who added the source, another editor then removed material saying it was pov, also adding page number and url. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning

1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent changes to the previous version have marginalized the mainstream view expressed by a majority of academic sources that ergot poisoning was the cause of the epidemic. Undue emphasis on a conspiracy theory that the CIA was responsible, sourced to reports repeating the claims of conspiracy theory author Hank Albarelli. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pete Brewton

Pete Brewton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Author of The Mafia, CIA and George Bush, which yields lots of hits in the usual conspiracy-minded websites. The article claims that it is a "best seller", but I can find no reliable secondary sources discussing the author or the book. Can anyone else turn up reliable source upon which an article could be built? Academic title is "Visiting Assistant Professor"[14] which would fail WP:PROF. - Location (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Brewton. - Location (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Flower of Life

Flower of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original research aplenty. Any cleanup possible?

jps (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I love "Possibly five patterns resembling the Flower of Life can be seen on one of the granite columns of the Temple of Osiris in Abydos, Egypt, and a further five on a column opposite of the building." From the article, it is clear that the name originates with Melchizedek, and is not an adaptation of existing name. The claims that the pattern is found elsewhere are a masterful synthesis. "An early example of a repetitive pattern constructed like the pattern of the Flower of Life can be seen in the Assyrian rooms of the Louvre Museum in Paris.[7]" "The extensive corpus of drawings of different geometrical figures by Leonardo da Vinci contains some figures resembling the Flower of Life" There are self-references to his own work. His website is here. Probably safe to delete the lot. Otherwise I will give the name 'circle of Damian' to any ordinary circle, and write a very long article about all the archeological sites where the circle of Damian can be found. You have been warned.Peter Damian (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess the answer is, "No." Thus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Information theory and quantum mechanics

See Bob Doyle (inventor). I suspect Doyle himself is responsible for much of that article, and other related ones. None of this makes sense to me:

Doyle describes himself as an "Information Philosopher". He argues that information philosophy can shed light on some classical unsolved problems, specifically free will, values, and knowledge.

Doyle's basic argument is that quantum mechanics, especially the wave function collapse, and the second law of thermodynamics play a key role in the creation of information structures. These structures range from galaxies, stars, and planets, to molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. They are the structures of terrestrial life from viruses and bacteria to sensible and intelligent beings. And they are the constructed ideal world of thought, of intellect, of spirit, including the laws of nature, in which humans play a role as co-creator.

On the other hand I don't know anything about quantum mechanics. Advice please. Peter Damian (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This part of the article is opinion and/or original research. I think this article does contain some notable contributions. Doyle invented Merlin, one of the first electronic games, which was the best-selling toy in 1980. Unfortunately, part of the article is opinion and part of it is simply not well screened for importance. I think the article should be kept, but it needs to concentrate on concrete and notable accomplishments. Those interested can go to Doyle's blog or personal site for the subjective content. Roches (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Doyle (inventor). jps (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on COI for alt med practitioners

See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Muslim population growth

Beginning of the second paragraph in the lead starts with "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the fastest-growing branch of Islam is Ahmadiyya". What my concerns is that User:Peaceworld111 keep adding this fringe theory to this article. Using Christian source on Islamic article about Ahmadiyya. First Ahmadiyya population is only 16 million while Muslim population is about 1.6 billion. Second he doesn't like a clarification added to the same line that Ahmadis are considered non-Muslim by mainstream Islam. Eulalefty (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't a 'fringe theory' - it is a claim which is cited to a disputed source, and accordingly more of an issue for WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Giants (esotericism)

Is there any reliable sources for these esoteric giants? The sources seems to be from unreliable occult books and from the way the article is written it reads like it is claiming these giants actually exist. Quack Hunter (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

James Shelby Downard

James Shelby Downard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Conspiracy author discussed by author conspiracy authors. I could use a fresh set of eyes to remove the unreliable sources and material attributed to the unreliable sources. - Location (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a bit of promotion for his conspiracy theories and having such quotes nearly try to right the great wrongs. I am going to clean up this article and also see if any of these claims are available on reliable references, although I haven't found any yet. VandVictory (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Psychometrics

I guess Psychoanalysis industry amounts to less billions of dollars than Psychometrics industry: [15]. Despite the related RFC was closed as "exclude", it may benefit from an additional discussion with a broader participation. Logos (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is more suited to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Logos (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

John Coleman (news weathercaster)

Categorized under conspiracy theorist, John Coleman (news weathercaster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article is daily visited by a long term sock, who continues to give undue weight to opinions on global warming by adding about American Meteorological Society, even though they have no bearing on the views of Coleman. (full discussion)

Problem is with the line "The American Meteorological Society has affirmed the theory of global warming." It is irrelevant and not even used as similarly by the provided source in this context. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have semiprotected it. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I observe more problems with this page than this sentence. It has used thinkprogress.org for reference, it is unreliable for climate change. Coleman is not an academic, and he should be more identified as a conspiracy theorist and there should be one section for criticism. Kingofaces43, opinion? VandVictory (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I was pinged to this one, but I can see some tweaking needed. I generally would just ignore edits made by a sock and discontinue the conversation. Given the context of mentioning the award he got from the AMS though and him being a fringe proponent, it would seem like due weight would call for us to just briefly mention that the AMS affirms global warming. We want to be wary about ambiguity by saying Coleman got an award and making it seem like the organization approves his viewpoint.

If the award is going to be listed, just do only that in the awards section, and briefly mention in the view on global warming section that he left the AMS because his views differed from AMS's stance that global warming is legitimate or however someone wants to word that last bit. That should be the minimum amount of content we're called to write with regards to explaining a fringe biography while not going overboard on it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Along with that, every issue has been clearly stated on the talk page as well as on the talk page of JzG.(check User_talk:JzG#John_Coleman_.28news_weathercaster.29) I do consider the harm in using sources in wrong context, that's why I mentioned the sentence above. If there are more problems with the article, they should be fixed as well. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• OccultZone. The opinion by Kingofaces43 is what I've been saying. King's opinion is also what is in the article, except for the placement. It was in the global warming section, but now awards. Source for him leaving is himself on a TV news produced video (42 seconds in). Source for AMS is the New York Times stating AMS' stance on Climate Change. (The American Meteorological Society, which confers its coveted seal of approval on qualified weather forecasters, has affirmed the conclusion of the United Nations’ climate panel that warming is occurring and that human activities are very likely the cause. In a statement sent to Congress in 2009, the meteorological society warned that the buildup of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to “major negative consequences.”) Those two sources are not being used in the wrong context. Source #1 says he left the AMS because of the AMS' stance on climate change. Source #2 gives AMS' stance on climate change thus backing up Source #1.
• The "Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year" is the highest award given to a broadcast meteorologist in the U.S. by the most prestigious and largest meteorological society. AMS also puts on the only broadcast meteorology conference.
• OccultZone has lied in his opening statement. This is MY edit. I am not a sock. No confirmed sock has edited the page since April 20. Only three edits by confirmed socks have been done in 2015.
• I am a meteorologist, sort-of. I have a Bachelor's and Master's in meteorology, though I am in computers at a University's meteorology department.
• VandVictory, do not call Coleman a "conspiracy theorist". This is not neutral. Use climate change skeptic. Also, I don't think he is in it for the money or politics, unlike Willie Soon or U.S. Republican Senators. Bgwhite (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

His views are non-scientific and promotes the Global warming conspiracy theory, it is neutral to call Coleman a conspiracy theorist. Why you are using Youtube as a reference? VandVictory (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

It's baaack. --Calton | Talk 21:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's also rewritten - it is now so anodyne as to be both worthless and unexceptionable. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably going to be kept. VandVictory (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversed burden of proof

Phantom time hypothesis: I reverted my own edit to here as it was pointed out this wasn't strictly allowed. You can't add a source which doesn't refer to the subject of the article. However this raises a problem I mentioned in an old essay here. "Because science generally ignores pseudoscience, it is often very difficult to find reliable sources that describe some pseudoscientific view as pseudoscientific". The esteemed Newyorkbrad has also commented likewise, saying "It is well-known in the skeptical community that there isn't clear and unambiguous scholarship refuting some of the more insane theories that are advanced, because they are sufficiently absurd on their face that no serious scholar will devote a chunk of his or her career to dealing with them. This is such a case, and the idea that Wikipedia policy requires us to treat the "Phantom time hypothesis" as a serious piece of historiography is a mistake. ".

Can I suggest a third way? Although <analogy> there aren't any source explicitly disproving the Flat Earth hypothesis, can we not gently add information about ways of proving the roundness of it? </analogy> I recently enjoyed reading Evolution of the eye, which is a good reply to creationist arguments that eyes couldn't have evolved. So would it be possible – without aiming to 'refute' PTH – to add a section about the period, mentioning Bede, the Popes who didn't exist, Johannes Scotus Eriugena etc etc. It could all be perfectly sourced, even if the facts about that period weren't established as a means of refuting the hypothesis. Peter Damian (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Both arguments of for and against would require some review, will see this one very soon. VandVictory (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding evidence, in any form, with the goal of refuting this conspiracy theory would run afoul of original research. It's not our role to prove or disprove anything. We should simply summarize what is covered in reliable sources. That said, the article is not properly constructed in that it presents arguments for and against as if they have equal weight. The 'for' arguments are entirely sourced to the books of the proponent of the "hypothesis". - MrX 18:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The stated aim would not be to 'refute' the theory, but simply to mention some of the events that happened in that period. Information only. Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, how would the mere statement that Anglo-Saxon chronicle was written during this period, be original research? Peter Damian (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is no more appropriate to mention events that happened during the period in this article than it would be mention Beyoncé in the Johnny Cash article. It is off topic. The question for you then is, why would you want to mention such events in the article, if not to argue against the plausibility of the subject?- MrX 22:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If there are very ridiculous theories that haven't been given any consideration at all by the mainstream of science, then it would surely be better if we didn't include them. It is the equivalent of something that only appears in a local newspaper. By putting them in wikipedia we give them an aura of respectability. --_nonsense ferret 20:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I used to think that, but then it occurred to me that one of the useful functions that Wikipedia can perform is to educate its readers. Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the Straight Dope qualifies as a reliable source: [16]. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

StraightDope is reliable for a skeptical viewpoint, which would apply here.

I'd think that FRINGE would require us to present historical events that happened during the time. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a non-peer reviewed essay by a retired academic here, and a suitably mocking writeup in Mother Jones. Those aren't the greatest sources but they're OK here per WP:PARITY. Peter's larger point still bears discussion: what to do when a "theory" is so patently insane that no one (or almost no one) outside the wackosphere covers it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

If no one outside of the wackosphere covers it, we shouldn't have an article on it. This article should be reduced to a few sentences and merged into Historical_revisionism_(negationism), in my opinion.- MrX 02:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, it's probably the best solution. --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

We can't suspend our policy on original research just because we have articles on pseudohistorical conspiracy theories. There's already sourced content about documented historical events during the period in question. Do we have so little faith in out reader's critical thinking skills that we have to violate our own policies to amplify the obvious? The real opportunity here is to restructure the article so that it doesn't read as two equal but opposite theories, rather than a fringe theory that few historians take seriously.- MrX 01:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• N seems to be the elephant in the room. If there are sufficient RS, there is an article. If it is patently absurd, someone will have raised it in context, historically. If it is contemporary FRINGE, then it is likely that there won't be RS supporting the theory without ample countervailing RS refuting it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

Another new proponent of the hypothesis (or at least the watered-down dehydrated semi-aquatic version now current) is intent on 'fixing' the article, with unsourced claims that it is gaining scientific credibility, endorsements by Richard Attenborough etc - along with the usual sob-story on the talk page about how 'sceptics' are persecuting proponents like they used to persecute Darwin. As per usual, more eyes on the article would be appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree that there's too much undue weight. VandVictory (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

But "[o]ne only has to watch little kids on the beach"! I've reverted the recent changes because of the obvious POV-pushing but I don't think that'll be the end of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

And, no surprise, it's back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I see edit warring. VandVictory (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Another account that hadnt edited since 2008 has joined the editwar. Weird. Somitcw (talk · contribs).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock I'd say, as they reverted shortly after the other editor was blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)