Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CEngelbrecht (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 13 January 2014 (→‎Aquatic ape hypothesis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

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

    Biocentric universe and Robert Lanza

    I came across this little area of quantum woo on Sixty Symbols [1]. I'd like some help in trying to contextualize, sanitize, and organize these two related articles. I'm not even sure the first one deserves an article, so work away and see what you think.

    jps (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently this is an idea which applies to art ?!? jps (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review all prior discussions on the Biocentric universe, from the long RFC to do with the page title to various past edit wars, so that you are fully up to speed on the high number of hours that editors have already spent on this. It would be best to avoid repeating any work already done. See especially Archive 1 of the Biocentric universe talk page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Where was it discussed that this idea has anything to do with art? jps (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to your comment on the need for a page for Biocentric universe and the neutrality of its current format--I'd like to ensure all people new to the page are aware of the lengthy process that has already taken place in terms of weighing the facts and opinions on the page. Not that fresh eyes on any entry aren't welcome. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See my arguments upon why Lanza should not be regarded as an authority on physics at Talk:Robert Lanza#20 W of energy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be ongoing ownership problems here. Lanza ought to be identified at least as a maverick if not an outright crank. How to do this with respect to WP:FRINGEBLP is the issue. Help would be welcome. Currently, there is a lot of pushback from people who want to argue that SixtySymbols isn't reliable even though this is basically the only place I've seen a quantum physicist comment on Lanza's rather, um, out there proposals that relate to quantum physics. jps (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    When is a myth not a myth

    Creationist advocacy has prevented the article on the creation myth in genesis from being named a creation myth in the article title for years. I would like to remedy that:

    Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move.

    Your input would be appreciated, especially considering that there are likely to be creationist advocates who will show up to complain.

    jps (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    More evidence that this is a canvassing board where neutral language is not at all required. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Presenting yourself as a supporter of neutrality here is very dishonest. You want us to say Christianity is true because it has a lot of followers. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't spin doctor my argument to suit your purpose, AKA strawman. I do NOT want us to say "Christianity is true" nor have I ever implied such, not even once. Get a grip, man. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Treat ALL religions equally. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ..And while you are at it, treat all adherents of a religion equally. Including the majority of Christians, who don't believe Genesis to be literally true... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's purely your polemical assertion about what the majority of Christians supposedly believe according to you! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Data for Americans. [2]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Literal" and "inspired word" are essentially the same thing. Both end up with the same major beliefs. Christians who believe either would accept the creation story. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you always want to focus exclusively in Americans? What percentage of El Salvadoreans? Ethiopians? Regardless, we can assume it is sufficient to qualify for SPOV purposes as a "widespread belief system" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that I wanted to focus exclusively on Americans - and I've made it clear elsewhere that I consider the Wikipedia tendency to treat the U.S. as the 'default' is one of the worst symptoms of systematic bias on Wikipedia. I provided the data in question, however, to demonstrate that I wasn't making a 'polemical assertion' - it was based on evidence. And of course, the U.S. has by far the largest number of people professing to be Christians of any nation in the world. The next largest (according to our Christianity by country article, are Brazil and Mexico - both (like El Salvador for that matter) overwhelmingly Catholic. The Catholic Church certainly no longer holds to any doctrine regarding the literal truth of Genesis. Not that it matters, ultimately. The number of people holding a belief system has no relevance to encyclopedic description of the belief system - and accordingly, we should use the same terminology regardless of whether two thousand people or two hundred million people hold it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In Creation myth we say: "By far the most well-known creation myth is the Genesis creation narrative." (Really?) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    When is a myth not a myth? When people believe in it, obviously. We're up against something of a hard place (and it's reflected in the discussion) that tagging this sort of religious explanation a "myth" carries along a pejorative connotation (which I imagine was always intended). I'm not getting involved, but I don't think there's going to be a satisfactory solution; either the skeptical or the believer POV is going to win, but we won't end up with neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't matter what people believe. Many if not a majority of people believe that seasons are caused by the Earth getting nearer and closer to the Sun. That doesn't and shouldn't affect what we do in Wikipedia, right? There is no "skeptical POV" here. There is only the fact that the most reliable sources identify the creation myth in Genesis as -- wait for it -- a creation myth. It's not surprising at all. jps (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    jps, "citation needed" on your statistics, as they say. But at any rate the obvious problem that any adherent can point out is that those "reliable sources" come from the implicit position that Judaeo-Christian claims about divine creation are untrue in any sense; I wouldn't be the first person to point out that this enables the use of "myth". I can't say I'm all that keen on the current title but anyone can see the lack of neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We should go with what the best scholarship says. Scholarship being contemporary writing from the appropriate disciplines: theology, social/cultural anthropology, philosophy. I'm seeing quite a lot of work that uses "myth" as a neutral technical term. There is the argument that "myth" is orally transmitted whereas Genesis is a written account. We have to take that seriously, but it's also well established that an orally transmitted tradition lies behind the written Genesis accounts. The other serious argument is that "narrative" is both neutral and accurate. So I am for "myth", but only weakly. Arguments that are irrelevant include whether Christian editors or readers will be upset, and whether we need to strike a blow for Science. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were a better name for it, I would be in favor of that name. It is the creation myth in Genesis. Some have suggested Genesis creation story, but it's obviously more than a story as it is more than a narrative. I also don't get the argument that a myth has to be an oral tradition. Certainly it has to be based on an oral tradition, but just because it is written down, that doesn't mean the myth becomes somehow something else. One source argues that the literary style isn't similar to other myths in the sense that the dramatic tension isn't there. (I don't think that there is an established claim that myths to be myths must have dramatic tension, but in the case of literary analysis almost anything goes if you are established enough.) This source claims we should call it a "report". That's a pretty weird minority view, but I don't see it as being strong enough to argue against calling the title what it is. The problem is that most of the arguments on the page are swirling around whether the term "myth" is biased or non-neutral. These are bogus arguments that prevent really informed discussion from happening as what is occurring here (after Til left the scene). jps (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mangoe Yes, that is what the adherents will object, but sources don't make any implicit assumptions about whether the facticity of the events recounted in the myth or true or not, they just characterize the form of human cultural production as "myth".
    I think that many people supporting the change to "myth" do so on the grounds that the argument that there are more current adherents to Christianity than any other religion that has a creation myth that Christians get to call their creation myth a narrative, implying that there is more historical validity to its content due to its currency among believers; hence, whichever religion has the most believers wins the battle for the truth of their stories, etc. Historic truth thus becomes the providence of the victors on the battlefield of religion (to wax poetic). In fact, that is probably close to the actual status of humanity at present, lamentable though some of us may find it. I'm reminded of the saying "history is written by the victors".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    *B. A late comment on Zeus and God, mythology and religion:
    God = Zeus; according to some and at least but not necessarily when understood as a god. Even using expressions like God vs/XOR Zeus shows an inherent bias. Abrahamic religion from a non abrahamic perspective is or could be considered equal to mythology, at least if the reverse is considered acceptable to be said. So just like spinning philosophical/scientific concepts (A) to support religious paranormal untestable claims is absurd, it's also absurd to invoke religious persecution and bias against one's own religion when one is denying respect, plausibility etc to the religion of other people(which in this case was a propos practically eradicated through every means possible by the family of religions of the accuser of his or similar views being a victim of religious or atheistic persecution/bias against), claiming unique existence and credibility of one's own supposedly only true/real god and religion.
    P.S.Personal Note: In fact when things like interpretatio graeca are considered, i.e. when considering that the followers of Zeus (et al) didn't make such unique exclusive absolutist claims against the (various) followers of Jehovah (formerly in the company of Asherah et al), it's very very sad to some people that the Hellenes and the Hellenists lost (lost meant as at least to some degree), at the Maccabean period or later... ;-)

    Thanatos at [3], quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    List of scientists who disagree with science

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy.

    This list is an embarrassment. Obviously a knock-off of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which also deserves deleting.

    jps (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed that the article should be deleted. Good luck if you want to delete the list of scientists opposing global warming. I fought hammer and tongs to get long quotes removed, which I see now has happened. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A trend has started: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS. jps (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this trend with lists. If it is important enough that controversy about a particular subject is included, then it should be in prose, in the main article (or split off). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that it is simply that it is easier to compose a list than to write a proper article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming now at AFD, pure OR and a BLP vio to boot. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely the key question is whether it is a list of those "opposing science" or of those critical of the mainstream view. Science will often have the latter type of scientist, fortunately as that is how science advances. While the main Wikipedia articles should reflect the mainstream view, it is relevant and interesting to have such lists of critics on important topics. cwmacdougall 11:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a big difference between being critical and being in opposition to. For instance, on the talk page I provided a source from a BLP who in his own words said "For the most part I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations", however as this list is on fact, as was stated "about denial" it does not matter, as he has made statements which disagree with the OR "criteria inclusion" he gets bunged into a list. The entire this is OR and a BLP violation, you cannot make up an inclusion criteria, that is OR, and then decide which BLP gets bunged in there. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Help at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming would be appreciated. I proposed that the inclusion criteria be made a bit stricter, but other ideas would be welcome too. jps (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits at Traditional Chinese medicine

    Numerous outdated non-notable sources are being dumped inside the reference section for no good reason. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how we're going to be able to referee an expertise battle on this. OTOH listing these as "references" is obviously wrong given that they aren't used as such. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the references inside the reference section are the same as the references in the body of the article. But some of the references in the body are not formatted correctly. Now I am going to have to format the citations in the body of the article to verify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, QuackGuru is trying to remove long-standing sources, in bulk, without consensus. A lot of these are actually cited in the article (e.g. as "Smith 1985, p.7"), so removing them is destructive. [4]. Some of them are of very high quality [5]. I'm sure the refs can be trimmed, but this is over the top.

    QuackGuru is approaching TCM topics the wrong way: making changes without consensus, asserting there is consensus (or otherwise IDHT-ing and misrepresenting the situation), and running here prematurely. I know QG is respected for his work in other fringe areas, but Chinese medicine is a mix of fringe and legit science (e.g. [6]) and he doesn't grok the nuance, and is a disruptive influence. It's too bad that some editors support him reflexively. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The mass WP:EL violation and other disputed text has been restored. See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Non-notable or duplicate sources moved to talk for the current discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Calm down; you'll probably like the current version [7]. None of this would have happened had both sides AGF'd more and been clearer about specifically what was going on. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We need more outside editors to review the situation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued problems at Traditional Chinese medicine

    Another editor identified the OR/SYN with some of the text. For starters, the part about the "heart-clearing" is SYN. There is also a bigger problem. The new section about Drug discoveries is a WP:WEIGHT violation. I explained on the talk page, I moved only the sourced text that is not about efficacy to other articles.[8][9] I do not see a reason to have this section with all the low level details. The text about efficacy should stay but it should be merged back into the efficacy section IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "Research to develop antimalarial drugs led to the discovery artemisinin, which is extracted from Artemisia annua,[111] a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category.[112]"

    "a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category.[112]" is a SYN violation. This was previously explained on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "After reading the ancient Chinese medical description, “take one bunch of Qinghao, soak in two sheng (∼0.4 liters) of water, wring it out to obtain the juice and ingest it in its entirety” in The Handbook of Prescriptions for Emergency Treatments by Ge Hong (283–343 CE) during the Jin Dynasty, she realized that traditional methods of boiling and high-temperature extraction could damage the active ingredient. Indeed, a much better extract was obtained after switching from ethanol to ether extraction at lower temperature."[10]

    The current text at Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug discoveries is misleading. Scientists are moving away from traditional methods. The drug is not a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category. QuackGuru (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: After I neutrally written the text according to what the source said it got deleted. The main point from the source was whitewashed. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • The place to discuss this, and much else that you've been posting here, is the article talk page.
    • You're misreading the source. More at talk page, this section.
    • You're too caught up in the "TCM ROX!"/"TCM SUX!" divide. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Slavic Vedism

    This article is a mess and is up for AfD. Of particular concern is to us the section about Hindu idols supposedly found in Russia. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm getting pushback about removing the fringe material from this. I'm on the edge about deletion; I'm inclined toward it slightly because it's not that clear that there are outside sources about the modern movements, and it's too difficult to pick through the Russian sources to work out which ones represent genuine media reporting. There are a bunch of Indian media reports cited which are obviously crap. But the "see, there were Hindus in ancient Russia too" and "see, all religions are the same" stuff is, in my evaluation, junk. If I could get a couple of other people to check this out I would be very grateful. Mangoe (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sleep-learning

    I added the category "pseudoscience" to Sleep-learning, we have the article Sleep and learning for any scientific information on any correlated activity between the two brain functions. Does anyone disagree? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A merge wouldn't be out of place. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The science one is about getting enough sleep to cement what you learned the previous day and having enough sleep to be alert to learn the following day. The pseudoscience is about learning new facts while you are asleep. If we keep them apart the "pseudo" tag will be correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call that pseudoscience. I would call it dubious science, but there are people working on it who are using the scientific method in a correct way. It isn't as if learning during sleep would be a miracle or anything -- there is plenty of organized brain activity during sleep. Looie496 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see a merger working, so that the article on Sleep and learning carries the following: the research showing that sleep is useful for alertness, thus for learning the following day; some research into how memories may be sifted and sorted during sleep (if we have good sources - I hope we do because it's interesting); how there was a notion from the 1920s that sleep was like hypnosis and people would pick up suggestions played to them; how that notion was completely discredited; how the sleep-learning notion was transmitted into literature. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a fan of the merger idea. The Sleep and learning article covers the scientific information and Sleep-learning covers a pseudoscienctific belief. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Urantia Book

    Edit warrior adding OR at Urantia Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Not the first time either. I gave him a 3RR warning after he hit 4 (missed the 3rd revert). Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific Carbohydrate Diet

    A restrictive diet promoted as useful for a number of conditions including autism and Crohn's Disease. The article has seen a bit of activity lately with questions of balance and neutrality being aired. May need more eyes ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (Update) I modify my final statement. The article does need more eyes. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see evidence of notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of references in scholarly literature, mostly saying "it hasn't been checked out" or "we don't think it works." Mangoe (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Foo fighters

    "The device, operated by special SS units, supposedly resembled a tortoise shell in shape, and flew by means of gas jets that spun like a Catherine wheel around the fuselage". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's amusing, but if somebody actually managed to get that published, I don't mind it being in the article - as long as it's framed appropriately as Vesco's idea (OK so far) and given due weight (maybe needs trimming).
    More generally, I think the article needs rebalancing, but it does already have some coverage of the skeptical position. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Vesco's "theory" gets a bit too much space ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Dubious text of the month

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel According to Seneca needs attention. I'm not finding evidence for this supposed heterodox scripture. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Klee Irwin: medical quackmeister or mild-mannered businessman?

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klee Irwin (3rd nomination) is up after a complete strip-out of negative material. In fact as you can see he has been hit with cease-and-desists from the FDA and local district attorney, as well as some SEC action. Scam watch blog posts on his enterprises abound. Personally I would like to save the article, but it actually has to tell the truth about him, which may be hard to source. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary S. Sherman

    An editor is insisting that one third of the article text be devoted to fringe conspiracy theories that one of his own sources says there is "no solid evidence" supporting them. Attempts to truncate this section per WP:UNDUE and add a further reliable source disputing these theories are being reverted. Gamaliel (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The conspiracy stuff, if notable, needs to go in its own section rather than be sprinkled throughout the article, e.g. Jim Garrison's comments in a Playboy interview are not a reliable source of fact regarding Sherman's death. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Aquatic ape hypothesis

    AAH is well-established fringe but persistent advocates are setting the standards on the talk page referring to "talk page consensus" (as far as I can tell) within the tiny group that are advocating it (everyone else gave up). The most arrogant and persistent advocate was reported on ANI without success. I've reported AAH before and last time that page got chopped to pieces. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is irrelevant. Fama Clamosa (talk · contribs) - have you warned the participants about discreitonary sanctions in WP:ARB/PS? If not, please do so. SPAs should be easily banned. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't warn anyone and I guess this means that I gave up AAH. I'll remove the page from my watchlist (like everyone else did). --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, Fama, for cryng out loud, I'm not interested in bullying any one with valid points out of editing this article, just because I happen to support this idea. I've experienced too much bullying on this topic myself. What I've rebelled against is a long history of misinformation and distortion about AAH, on Wiki and elsewhere. I only wish to see a proper encyclopedic entry about this complex, and aparently divisive, topic. I don't see that as being arrogant, albeit perhaps I'm a tad paranoid at times. If you have valid points in terms of POV-phrasings or neutrality, let's just deal with that, especially if you're right. Just don't fall into a category of expecting ridicule of a misrepresented topic, and then frown on otherwise non-POV phrasings, that wouldn't support that. I'm not against representing the opposition to AAH (or though it's difficult for me to see what the hell it is at times), or for over-representing pro-AAH arguments where invalid. Especially if the hypothesis is so bloody wrong. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Owing to this extremely problematic comment, I have notified CEngelbrecht (talk · contribs) of discretionary sanctions that are in effect at aquatic ape hypothesis. Further disruption should be referred to WP:AE with reference to this notification. jps (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh? How in the hell is the above problematic?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab

    Thoughts on this please, ladies + gents.

    No independent references as fas as I can tell. only papers are in notorious pseudojournal/unreliable source Journal of Consciousness Studies. AFD? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is pure puffery. A former PEAR staff member named Brenda Dunne subjected the article to an intense POV push, but even if the article is reverted to its previous state it still contains little to nothing of encyclopedic value. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article is still predominantly puffery, despite the edits that I and others did some time back, which were admittedly rather tame. PEAR is, however, a curious artifact in the history of science and probably deserves to be retained in WP in some form. Perhaps the best approach would be to eliminate all the self-promotion and unreliable material, then see what's left. If it's inadequate as a standalone entry, we can merge what remains into the Robert Jahn page, and redirect PEAR there.
    Much of the lab's early experimental work is described in a 1982 IEEE-invited paper by Robert Jahn. Here's the info: Jahn, R.J., "The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective", Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 136-170, February 1982. This paper provides some broader insights into the overall field, but it has not yet been included in either the PEAR or Jahn pages.
    (BTW, most of the existing references for the PEAR entry are not from the above-mentioned Journal of Consciousness Studies, which is a fairly respected academic forum. They're from the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is indeed quite unreliable and unindexed; probably all but one of them should be eliminated.) Cheers! jxm (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    ‪Noah and Abraham‬

    According to our Wikipedia infobox, Noah lived to be 950. And I'm not sure what the parenthetical "Biblical dating" means. I have tried to clean this up, but have been reverted a couple of times by someone who feels that the info is properly sourced (to the Bible). LuckyLouie (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Found the same issue at Abraham. jps (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't be in infoboxes, should say in the text that the Bible says so. Itsmejudith (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    voice to skull

    This new article, which unfortunately was approved at AfC, contains about 10% valid information and 90% fringe theory, by my estimate. I'm reluctant to take it on single-handed. Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup - I've removed the most glaringly-obvious hogwash, though I suspect that AfD is probably the best solution. The whole thing looks like synthesis to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It also seems to me that whoever approved this at AfC should be asked to explain how this got passed. I'll look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a POV FORK of psychotronics recycling much of the same material but with an emphasis on tinfoil hattery. Someone please send it to AfD. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 02:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Gentech Pharmaceutical

    Not sure whether this belongs here or not. Gentech Pharmaceutical appears to my research to be a company that markets pharmaceuticals that have never been described in peer-reviewed publications, which would place their product as a fringe medicine. Whether or not what they're selling is snake oil, I couldn't tell you, but as they've never published any research that suggests otherwise, I think we need to assume that it is. Their home page is of course replete with unsubstantiated claims about their products (the main one is apparently "widely regarded as the most advanced and effective Synthetic Amphetamine", although they don't ever tell you by whom, or indeed define what "synthetic amphetamine" actually means). 87.112.96.96 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it just me, or does Gentech sound confusingly similar to Genentech? I added a disambiguation hatnote. And what does ""Affiliated Organizations" mean? I suspect that it means that LA Fitness ordered some product to sell in their internal store. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory

    A favorite fringe subject forked off by an editor who seems to have a POV problem, judging from the fuss he kicked up at Ashkenazi Jews. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's pretty clear from the course of the discussion that this is going to survive, so those of you who are keeping an eye on this may need to adjust your watchlists accordingly. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=590540767"