Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.132.247.16 (talk) at 03:30, 24 December 2017 (→‎Cold fusion at Wikiversity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    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:



    Constructal law

    This is a "law" proposed by Adrian Bejan that appears to have no currency outside his close circle. The article is blatant WP:SYN. I have nominated for deletion, but others may be sufficiently aware of the theory to be able to turn it into a neutral article that accurately reflects its status (if indeed it has any). Guy (Help!) 09:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just an FYI, while "constructal law" is, as the physicists say, "not even wrong", articles about it have sometimes been used as a citation for less controversial statements, so don't get too over-enthusiastic in pruning. I reverted and substituted a better ref on animal locomotion and propulsion for the uncontroversial statements that propulsion is due to imparting momentum to the environment. By all means prune, this "law" is pure fringe, just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. HCA (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Better refs is good. Any paper that focuses on pushing a fringe view, even if 90% of the paper is uncontroversial, is a poor ref, IMO. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    C. Johan Masreliez

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Johan Masreliez.

    I also submitted Masreliez's theorem for CSD.

    jps (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone has time, it might be helpful to see which of these Special:Contributions/Ferrofield need to be reverted/changed. jps (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Åke Gerhard Ekstrand looks kind of iffy on notability grounds, and at the very least needs a thorough copy-editing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this edit to Andrew Guinand added a heap of copyvio, which I've cleaned up. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps not surprisingly, I've filed a new SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurtan~enwiki. jps (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no association to the account in question. I only voted at that AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, since we know that the account that created these associated articles is Swedish, suffers from WP:Source counting, and has engaged in prodigious sockpuppetry, I feel that there is enough evidence to investigate anyway. jps (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence? An simple IP check will show that I have no association to that account whatsoever. BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I outlined the concerns. It is entirely possible that you are innocent and that this is just a series of coincidences. On the other hand, we have been burned in past deletion discussions with serial sockpuppetting (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez and the associated SPIs linked on the page in question). jps (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am completely innocent. No assocation to that sock. Seems the only connection is that I vote usually Keep in AfDs and that I voted at an AfD associated to the sock. No concrete evidence. All I am saying is that starting SPI investigations without evidence is time consuming and distressing for the inncoent party.BabbaQ (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Likewise, !voting !keep with problematic rationales that are rehashing of previous rationale given by other sockpuppeting accounts is time-consuming. The reason this is an "investigation" rather than a conviction is because we don't know what the situation is. Third parties will make the determination and this will all be over in a matter of days. Wikipedia is a time sink because we really don't have good protections against the sort of problems that having content curated by pseudonymous editors causes. You've made your case, I've made mine, let's let others look into the situation, okay? jps (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reason for SPI nom me is that I !voted Keep in that specific AfD. Had I !voted Delete this wouldnt have been raised. Make your own conclusion. Anyway this will lead nowhere so lets end this discussion. Bye.BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let the record show that the SPI as expected was closed with no indication that I was involved. BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Theorem

    How exciting!

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez's theorem.

    jps (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I know this stuff is tiresome, but right now we're running into a rather milquetoast discussion about whether this theorem is worthy of having an entire article in Wikipedia. The fringe-connection is purely biographical as far as I can tell, but this does strike me as a rather obscure and not-particularly-worthy-of-inclusion article as it stands. How does one make it better? The weak keepers are not saying. Can anyone else help add some clarity to this discussion? jps (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche

    The Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche (Spanish: Mapuche Ancestral Resistance, RAM) is an organization in Argentina that wants territories that they claim belonged to the Mapuche indigenous peoples, and who uses violence and vandalism to voice their protests. Some call them a terrorist organization, others prefer to use more politically correct terms. However, I'm having problems with some users that frequently add a fringe theory that says that the RAM does not exist, and that it would be just a big deception crafted by intelligence agencies in order to use political repression. I'm not misrepresenting the edits: see the current lead. And in support of this theory we have the senator Pino Solanas, a local priest, and some journalists. A deeper check shows that Solanas belongs to a minor left wing party, that got less than 1.5% of the vote in the previous primary elections and could not even run in the main elections (see here). The local priest is just that. And those "journalists" belong to unreliable sites with very poor reputation, such as "Página 12" or "La Vaca").

    Real and noteworthy politicians do acknowledge the existence and actions of this group, such as the vicepresident, The Justicialist Party (the main party of the opposition), province governor Alberto Weretilneck (a province governor is an office analogous to that of a US state governor), the Chilean government, etc.

    We may acknowledge the existence of this fringe theory, but in a lower section, treated as such, and confronted with the mainstream views. Not as it done now, that they cast doubts on the existence of the group everywhere. Cambalachero (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been a couple of days and the user adding this has not taken part in the discussion, either here or at the article talk page (where John Carter agreed that the existence of the group is well established). Even more, Alejandro6 has been here, asked me for the right place to voice his opinions and made some other edits, but did not explain his edits anywhere. So I moved on and removed the fringe theory.
    By the way, I also found this, the original manifest of the RAM, back in 2014. Even more, I also found this, the reaction of Página 12 in 2014 when the RAM released this manifest. That source, that now says that the RAM is some kind of deception from the government, did not say the same back then. Cambalachero (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC
    Hi. I did wrote here a couple days ago, I just wasn't aware of how I had to do it. Ok, first of all, my edit of the article was based not on my opinion on the subject, but it consisted on make it as closest on info and direction to the version in spanish as I can. Pagina 12 is not a very poor reputation site, but the neswpaper where the most important journalists of Argentina worked in the last 30 years (and the link to the 2014 aricle of Pág 12 you found stats the unusual and doubtful nature of all this right from the title). There is many contributors to the spanish version of the article, not just me, and many other sources too; I think user Cambalachero 's edits reflects their own political view of the subject; Either he is right, an all of the contributors -not just myself- to the spanish version of the article are wrong, or visceversa.(Briefly, the ram itself is a fringe, the whole mapuche comunity denounce that to be investigated, cause the gov whitout prove of their existence present them to the press as representative of them, so they can criminalize any mapuche protest against the sell of their lands to privates, i.e. Benetton. This week a police unit on an illegal land eviction opened fire on a mapuche family and murdered one, of course none of them was armed. the Comission of Human Rights is investigating all this right now.)I'll invite other users to this discussion, I just dont't know if they speak english. Regards. Alejandro6
    So, you are basically saying that we should report that the RAM does not exist because another wikipedia does so. Well, Wikipedia itself (any of them) is not a reliable source, and can not be used as a precedent for verifiability. That's because anyone may edit an article and insert any fringe theory in it. And that counts double for the article of the RAM in wikipedia in Spanish, as one of those users is... you!
    I have also noticed this and this, an inappropiate form of canvassing (and note that Wikipedia in Spanish has a similar policy, so your action would have not been allowed there either) Cambalachero (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought that what was I supposed to do, to bring the other contributors so this is not personal vs personal view; But ok... what I'm saying, again, is ram does not exist because there is No proves of his existence...and if you are argentine, you know that false flag illegal operations by intelligence services is habitual, a few months ago in the protest march for Santiago Maldonado case in buenos aires I saw a police group dress as civilians, screaming anarquia(¿?) then breaking cameras of those journalists who doesn't support the gob (here a link to a right wing journalist talking about this, not an oppositor of the gov) [1]; it happened since the 70's (e.g. alfredo astiz); So far there is 2 dead people, at least one murdered by police men and NOT A SINGLE PROVE of an armed mapuche guerrilla...this idea could be pretty laughable if there wasn't people murdered. Here, a deputy, not an oppositor but a member of the actual government, is scandalized and worried about all this:[[2]] Is this enough for you? What you are doing should not be allowed. alejandro6 (talk)

    Of course that you can call other people, but not the way you did it. Not calling people who support your point of view, and asking them to support you. And, before you continue crying that "there is no proof", you should reply to my previous post. There you have the RAM manifest, the RAM itself announcing their existence and intentions. Besides, like any fringe theory, this one falls in pieces once you check it just a bit. Question 1: the RAM became noteworthy for the press during the Maldonado case, but they have been active since 2014. Back then, the president was not Macri, but Cristina Kirchner. Does this mean that this alleged plot to make the mapuches be seen as criminals was arranged by Kirchner? Question 2: What about the Coordinadora Arauco-Malleco? What about the Mapuche conflict? Is that supposed to be another forgery? Cambalachero (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, you are getting agressive now. (Cry?). You please indicate me how to call other people, I called 2 of the main editors of the article because of the sources they used. However you just made it clear what is this all about, you are defending your political party view (which is dangerous and racist) by bringing the macri vs. kirchner stuff that has nothing to do here. For the last time, where do you have a proof (cause the government doesn't) that there is a mapuche armed guerrilla instead of a fringe of the intelligence service? Mapuches barely can buy shoes. RAM manifest? done by who? Give me a link to any confiscated fire wheapons by the law, or any report of the true identities of those 5 masked big guys that set fire right in front of the police, then walking to a truck and leaving with the police not even trying to arrest them. Of course it started under C. Kirchner government; that's why many organizations standed against of implementation of Proyecto X, there is even an article here, just go read it [[3]]. Me and other users did posted links to interviews and declarations of real representants of Mapuche communities giving their full names speaking about all this, (besides deputies -not even leftists, god help us...), journalists and the bishop of bariloche) not some wiki entry -about chilean events ¿?- as you are bringing. Here is the Major of Bariloche talking about this, he doesn't know about the ram nor think any incident had to do with it [4], However I think it's useless to explain you anything, cause you are doing propaganda (a dangerous one, being already a murdered mapuche 3 days ago) here, and you should be banned by vandalism. (Edit, just on more link that you will surely ignore, another deputy claims RAM is a made-up enemy[5]; Alejandro6

    In English, the word "cry" is not only for sheding tears (Spanish: "llorar"), but also for shouting and yelling. Of course that not all mapuches are members of the RAM, as that mayor said. Similarily, it is frequently pointed in the US that not all muslims are related to islamic terrorism. However, that doesn't mean that islamic or mapuche terrorism does not exist. The mayor is not saying that, you are misquoting him. María Soria is saying that, all right, but you are correct, we'll ignore her. Keep on reading, she says that it's all part of a conspiracy to conceal news from the press, and when someone voices a conspiracy theory, it does not matter who is her. Cambalachero (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you (as well as the law) think there is an illegal fact or organization going on you most prove it, (specially if there is a murdered involved) not the other way around. Still you (or the government) don't have a prove that any Mapuche killed anyone, nor there is an armed mapuche gueriilla in Argentina(btw if you honestly believe such delusional thing I don't think this conversation can go any further). The one real fact so far is that gendarmerie murdered one mapuche 3 days ago (and we still don't know what happened to Santiago Maldonado. And, the we'll ignore her about the link to the deputy I posted, I want to know who is WE, and why you are unable of doing your vandalism on the spanish section of the same article on wikipedia as you are doing here. Alejandro6

    it's ok with me to move it; I would prefer not to do it myself to prevent mistakes, I'm still not entirely familiar with wikipedia functions. To Cambalachero, you said it, when someone voices a conspiracy theory, it does not matter who is her. that's exactly what you, part of argentinean gov. and some press are doing. That's my point. Alejandro6

    barcus I just copied the discussion into the Talk of the article; do I delete it from here? Thanks Alejandro6

    Fringe theory of the week: Square dancing was a racist hoax funded by Henry Ford to get white people to stop dancing to black music

    https://boingboing.net/2017/12/08/dr-pappy-shaw.html

    http://www.save-squaredancing.com/history.htm

    Alternative theory: The Slave Roots of Square Dancing

    https://daily.jstor.org/the-slave-roots-of-square-dancing/

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)

    Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

    has re-sprouted. Quite apart from anything else, what I wonder is "homeopathic surgery" ? Alexbrn (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You bet me to it :). Well it is a real thing, sadly, that is really regulated by a government body. I merged it with Central Council of Homoeopathy, which it was originally redirected to. Work may need to be done on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexbrn: It's the British notion of surgery, not American, I presume. See here - If a British Doctor Invites You to ‘Surgery,’ Should You Be Worried?. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned up the section but has no specific idea about surgery.I also note that per this source, there is a Bachelor of Siddha Medicine and Surgery:) On some more searching, there exists Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery, Bachelor of Naturopathy Medicine and Surgery and Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery too!Winged BladesGodric 15:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And AFAIK, we, in India, don't use the word surgery in it's British meaning.Winged BladesGodric 16:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comic relief. jps (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dara O'Briain vs homeopathy --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    From the Arizona Republic (Phoenix, Arizona), Wednesday, July 18, 2007:[6][dead link]

    "A homeopathic doctor was suspended Tuesday for his role in a botched liposuction operation earlier this month that resulted in the death of the patient.
    A state regulatory board deemed Dr. Greg Page a 'clear and present danger to the public.'
    Page performed the liposuction procedure on July 3 at the Anthem office of Dr. Peter J. Normann, whose practice was restricted by the state in May after two other liposuction patients suffered cardiac arrest on the operating table and died.
    Normann, who provided follow-up care in the July 3 surgery, was suspended last week, and both doctors are awaiting hearings with an administrative judge, who can revoke their licenses or reinstate them.
    Page’s suspension by the Arizona Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners followed a half-hour executive session and an hour of questioning. Page took part by phone.
    Under state law, homeopaths may do 'minor surgery,' and Dr. Bruce Shelton, president of the Arizona Homeopathic and Integrative Medical Association and former president of the Homeopathic Board, said whether liposuction can be considered minor surgery 'is a huge gray area.'
    'In my opinion, it (liposuction) is best left to plastic surgeons,' he said.
    Dr. Garry Gordon, a member of the homeopathic board who practices in Payson, focused his questioning on the medications Page used during the procedure. Page said there was nothing out of the ordinary, but acknowledged that he did not know whether the patient had taken pre-surgical vitamins and minerals, as normally required.
    No one on the homeopathic board asked whether liposuctions fall within the range of procedures that a homeopath is licensed to do. Chris Springer, executive director of the board, declined to comment on the matter because she is not a doctor, and the three doctors on the board also declined to comment.
    The patient that Page treated who died, identified only as LR, was a 250-pound woman who was having liposuction done on her thighs. It took about five hours, and Page left the premises an hour later, about 7 p.m., the medical board report said.
    Normann stayed behind while the patient awaited a ride. He tried to rouse her from sleep at 9:50 p.m., was unable to do so, and 911 was called at about 10:10 p.m. The patient later died at the John C. Lincoln Deer Valley Hospital.
    Page, a licensed homeopath since 2005, told the homeopathic board he considered the patient fine when he left.
    'She was in a condition where I would have discharged her to her ride,' he said."

    --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Am I alone in being horrified by the idea that a homeopath would consider themselves qualified to conduct surgery? They don't even accept germ theory (infection control, anyone?) and their study of anatomy is tied to the refuted concept of miasms. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am equally horrified that he was suspended by the Arizona Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners -- a group of homeopaths regulating other homeopaths. Anyone who performs surgery should have accusations of misbehavior judged by actual (as in M.D.) surgeons. From [ https://homeopath.az.gov/about ]:
    "Homeopathic and Integrated Medicine license scope includes the practice of acupuncture, chelation, homeopathy, minor surgery, neuromuscular integration, nutrition, orthomolecular therapy, and pharmaceutical medicine (see A.R.S. § 32-2901(22)). Physicians under this license who intend to dispense general, homeopathic or nutritional medications, substances or devices from an office, must apply for and receive a dispensing permit."
    Interesting that we have articles on all of those except neuromuscular integration. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Warner (Political Islam)

    Warner (aka Bill French) also runs something called The Center for Political Islam. What makes him fringe, I think, is his pseudoscientific statistical method that he thinks shows the truth about Islam. I hope one of these sources mentions it, I can't recall if I copied the url or not. See [7] [8] [9] [10] [11][12][13]. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe science alert for Adam's Bridge

    The Discovery Channel's "What on Earth" has a broadcast coming that people are trying to use to prove that Adam's Bridge was built by Rama.[14][15] This is going to be a big deal for Hindu nationalists.[16] I can't find much on "What on earth" except this. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Watchlisted.S.Swamy's observations are usually always BS and I would be surprised if he had not commented on the issue! I will, though, try to catch the broadcast:)Winged BladesGodric 15:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the "Evidence" section's contents down to the "Controversies" section. Since the entire contents of that section were about the controversial upcoming show and there was no actual evidence discussed, this seemed the best place for it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Macrobiotics - heads up

    I've been getting a stream of slightly pestering emails from an (unindentified) individual wanting me to recuse myself editing from this article, and this prompted me to have a fresh sweep for sources in case we were missing anything substantial. Imagine my surprise when this turned up this book in which I play an (unwitting) bit part! Our article probably could be fuller, and with this kind of activism going on Macrobiotic diet might be an article that fringe-savvy editors could usefully add to their watchlists. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you quoted or named in the book? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, on page 7 (using Amazon's "Look inside"). But it's not just me ... apparently the whole of Wikipedia is working to suppress The Truth™ on a variety of topics including GMOs and Homeopathy! Alexbrn (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can trump that. Deepak Chopra once gave me a shout out on one of his youtube videos !! -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I used to get a christmas card every year from Michael Winner, after he insulted me in his Times column. I have also been subject to incoherent rants from Dana Ullman, and (of course!) by Lynne McTaggart, the "viciously, viciously anti-vaccine" editor of What Doctors Don't Tell You (you can probably guess why they don't tell you it just from the title). Pretty sure Sheldrake took a pop, too. What they all have comon is the idea that I am a militant skeptic who came to Wikipedia to enforce scientism. It's actually precisely the opposite way round: I was unaware of organised skepticism until I was already an admin here and started dealing with articles relating to quackery. Obviously now I have met Edzard Ernst, Simon Singh, Marsh and many others, but I did not even know who they were when the accusations started flying. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jodie Marsh I hope. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP, surpressing the Truth™? Nevah! [17] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't link to garbage propaganda sites as if they had anything to add (to save everyone the click, it's Discovery Institute's Wikipedia whingefest page. --Calton | Talk 08:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is, that was the point/what makes it interesting. Supressing Truth™ is important WP-work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Calton, it is fucking hilarious! The Discotute is fascinating. They try to be sane, to be taken seriosuly, but their arguments are functionally indistinguishable from those of David Icke or whale.to, when you peel away the faux-scholarly language. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You may enjoy these from Haaretz more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it´s an SPS, so it´s not much we can do (except stand by for activism, of course). At a (long) stretch, I guess you could put it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs if you like ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, even the Bill Shurtleff stuff I was involved in made it on the same page even. This person seems to get around Wikipedia at least, so probably best to keep an eye on the broad topic too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Aron K. Barbey ‎

    The article on Aron Barbey is an obvious autobiography, edited by himself and IP addresses from his university. The only other edits have been removing obvious puffery - and even then, there's precious little else in the article. What caught my eye is the fact that he's associated with a Frontiers journal, and promulgates a field called "Nutritional Cognitive Neuroscience", which was linked in his autobiography not to a Wikipedia article but to a journal article in Frontiers. Virtually all the cites in the article are primary references to his won work, and most of those are in the Frontiers journal he edits. Which is a massive red flag.

    So, I suspect we have a woo-monger here, but I don't know whether the article needs to be nuked, or expanded to cover reality-based critique, if any exists. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is borderline Men who stare at goats sort of research (not quite as bad as that, but following the tradition) that the US government pushes around. Nutriceuticals? That's very dodgy. Still, the guy's won millions of dollars to study this stuff. Makes me think a bit less of IARPA. jps (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Abd is stalking and attacking you both on his blog [18] in regard to Aron Barbey. He has done the same on about 5 other articles of his. [19]. He was banned on Wikipedia yet he is still active on Wiki-media projects. Can this guy get banned for this? The Wikimedia foundation should be informed about his harassment. 82.132.217.30 (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is surprised. Abd is obsessive. He even got banned from RationalWiki because they got bored with him. Not seeing any evidence of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry here though. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Abd just requested a global lock for the above IP address I used [20]. He is clearly abusing the Meta-Wiki website. 82.132.220.14 (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted a contribution by him, I assume, yesterday, and he’s more than doubled the size of his autobiography today. When I get home, (I’m at the vet), I shall enjoy reverting again. My paws can’t cope on this ipad. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Energy Catalyzer

    Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This is a boring subject, but it looks like gatekeepers believe that the lazy reporting of mutual settlement is the only thing we should say about the lawsuit that ended last year. We, of course, all know that the long con is long, but it does the reader no good to not indicate that the "settlement" as it was, entailed Rossi "walking away" from the lawsuit (the source says as much). jps (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC) @Insertcleverphrasehere: for an argument. jps (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose I should not be surprised that these scammers are still up to their tricks. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Craig Roberts

    I don't deal with fringe topics that often, so I would appreciate a second opinion on whether the subject is notable or not. The article relies on the subject's own website to a large extent and is a subject of current edit warring. I'm wondering if AfD is the way to go here. Please also see:

    K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    How American fundamentalist schools are using Nessie to disprove evolution

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13062835.How_American_fundamentalist_schools_are_using_Nessie_to_disprove_evolution/

    Key quote:

    "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

    --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    They never cease to delight. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wolfgang Pauli's famous observation seems to apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At least the claim that a Japanese whaling boat once caught a dinosaur sounds legit.

    Godzilla's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

    --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Plesiosauria are not considered Dinosaurs. Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This reminds my of a conversation I read a while back. Someone was commenting on Disney's animated Hunchback of Notre Dame movie, complaining that it didn't get the medieval catholic concept of "sanctuary" right, and someone replied "You have a problem with that, but not with the talking bats?" :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are three gargoyles in the film, but no talking bats. And there are actually plenty of things the film got wrong about the characters from the original novel. In the novel, Claude Frollo is an Archdeacon who is struggling to keep his celibacy oath, while actually overcome with passion. In the Disney film, Frollo is a judge, and commands soldiers. In the novel, Captain Phoebus is a vain, untrustworthy rake, who uses his good looks to seduce and take advantage of women. He coldly observes the execution of Esmeralda (his would-be mistress) and does not lift a finger to help her. In the film, Phoebus is a hero with a heart of gold, and genuinely loves Esmeralda. Having seen the film after reading the novel, I was actually puzzled why they bothered to adapt a story they were not planning to follow. Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Had it not occurred to you that maybe Hugo got it wrong and Disney was just correcting the story? TFD (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Related observation: Over the years I have asked at least 50 different people the following questions: [1] Have you ever read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court? [2] How did it end? Most claimed that the read it many years ago in school, and not one could tell me how the story ended in the book. Mostly they told me how it ended in one of the film or TV adaptations. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One of these days, somebody's going to realize that there's an easy way to cheat. That being said, I refuse to actually cheat and will provide the (probably wrong) answer that there's a huge siege of a castle that the main character is in, and he and like ten guys kill all the attackers with guns and then get stuck in the dungeon where the Yankee falls asleep, not waking up until it's the "modern" day again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you remember anything about everyone else on the Connecticut Yankee's side dying and what killed them? (A plot detail that our article does not cover, BTW.) It's one of the most striking parts of the ending. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't. I know there were three rows of electric fences and the damage they did to the attackers was a pretty important part of the end. I think Merlin died when he tripped and fell against the fence, but I don't remember everyone else dying of anything except (implied) natural causes, years after the Yankee fell asleep. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: I also last read this shortly after high school. My dad had bought me this "library" that consisted of about 30 volumes which contained the greats from 19th century literature. Poe, Twain, Doyle, Haggard and more. It also had a couple volumes of Greek and Norse mythology. I used to love those books, but they fell apart years ago. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But Nessie lives on! SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In The original book by mark Twain, The electric fences killed so many of the knights that there were bodies piled all around the compound, and when those bodies began to rot, the air became so bad that it killed everyone in the compound except the Connecticut Yankee, who magically managed to return to modern times and tell the tail. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Hochberg

    According to all standard genealogical and as far as I can tell all biographical sources, Alexander Hochberg died on 22 February 1984. We seem to have a busy little beaver who asserts that he was a collective of secret agents who lived until 18 October 1988. The article seems to be a mass of false statements, probably on behalf of the busy little beaver, who asserts that "the false Alexander" adopted one Max Heelein, who "inherited his titles". The article needs to be reverted back, I think, to a version before this bizarre editing started. I only noticed this when changes were made to Daisy, Princess of Pless to add the false death date and history. I've reverted that, but further advice on the Alexander Hochberg article would be appreciated. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nunh-huh: I rolled it back and applied pending changes, and warned the user. WWvH strongly suggests von Hochberg as a name, but whether that is real or the user is a collective of spies I could not say. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent plan, thanks for formulating it and putting it into execution. He reinserted a bit of nonsense at Daisy, Princess of Pless, though I don't know if it was before or after you warned him. I've rolled that back again. - Nunh-huh 09:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG and Nunh-huh: PC doesn't affect WWvH who has reinstated their edit. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 31h, to get his attention. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Global International Scientific and Analytical Project

    Bluntly, this looks bogus to me, and I have AfD'd it, but that could be my bias. Please review. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Found it on an archive copy of Beall's list here. I also found this, which is not RS but interesting nonetheless. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you think I found it, Boris? ;-) See User:JzG/Predatory. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, do you expect me to actually read the AfD and stuff before mouthing off with my half-assed opinion? That's just not the way we do things here on Wikipedia. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    New York Times goes gaga for UFOs

    Oh dear. [21]

    This one is going to be a pain. It's already beginning: [22].

    We're going to need to figure out what to do about this. The times interviewed James Oberg and Sara Seager for the requisite "balance", but it's clear that this is some breathless newsroom editor ball-dropping.

    jps (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course the Pentagon investigated UFOs. The sightings could have been enemy surveillance. A few idiots have decided that UFO means alien spacecraft, hence another round of lunacy. Unfortunately you get the strong impression that the "President" believes in the little green men and thinks he's going to get famous by being the one to blow the lid off the whole thing. As if anything like that could possibly be kept secret, especially in an age where virtually everybody has a high definition digital camera with them at all times. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "A few idiots have decided that UFO means alien spacecraft" If they were identified as spacecraft, then the "Unidentified" part of the definition would not apply to them. Dimadick (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is largely a smokescreen. The idea is that the "unidentified" aspect allows for wild speculation on the part of those who want to believe, y'know? And apparently this is also Robert Bigelow's angle. Oh, what a billion dollars will do! jps (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the story is in the "politics" section of the paper. I was surprised to see Leslie Kean's byline included as one of the authors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The political angle is that a lot of the money allocated to fund the program went to company run by a good buddy (ie big donor) of Senator Harry Reid, and the buddy didn’t produce much in return for the funds (if you are going to take government money to search for UFOs... at least find some something to report... weather balloons or something). Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a less breathless discussion of the whole thing. [23]. Unfortunately, in a few months when the analyses of more sober thinkers come through, the media and fly-by-nighters will have moved on and we'll get to clean up the details. jps (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fun cocktail party conversation starter. "What is the relationship between Blink 182 and Budget Suites of America?" jps (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, this NYT story has definitely re-energized some discussions in obscure UFO articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And here is a recently-created article heavily citing the NYT story: USS Princeton aerial object incident - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheaffer is doing the Lord's work here: [24]. jps (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Will somebody please tell me What is the relationship between Blink 182 and Budget Suites of America? Thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll need to attend the cocktail party to get the answer, Roxy. Meanwhile, this is being used as a primary source. It doesn't look independent to me. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Deuterium-depleted water

    Promoted by charlatans to chemotherapy patients, but, as the article notes, "Research on the effects of deuterium-depletion on living cells has been very limited with less than a dozen peer-reviewed research papers available via PubMed in mid-2011". Which is not WP:SYN at all, oh no. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I nixed the PopSci blog with its overblown health claims as a source. The journal article I substituted isn't great, but it deals with physical properties and doesn't jump to health-related conclusions—and it's only used to substantiate the use of "light water" as a (confusing) synonym for deuterium-depleted water anyway. (It's surprisingly difficult to find a non-crap source for this point, which leaves me strongly inclined to believe that the "light water" moniker is principally a marketing move by the aforementioned charlatans.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, thanks. It would be good to find sources critiquing the quackery, but it seems very fringe at the moment. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cold fusion at Wikiversity

    Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Cold fusion. This is the fringe nonsense that user:Abd was sanctioned for advocating here, leading to his eventual ban for block evasion.

    please note that Wikiversity is separate from Wikipedia... and thus subject to its own (different) policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Abd has been harassing several wikipedia users and admins on his cold fusion website. He attacks Wikipedia again only yesterday [25], and stalks users here [26], he has also written thousands of words about his ban attacking Wikipedia admins [27]. Despite being banned from Wikipedia. He is active on meta-wiki where he hosts a "study" that slanders skeptical Wikipedia users and incorrectly claims they are all the same banned person AngloPyramid, an old user he has a grudge against. He includes a bunch of different IP addresses, mostly unrelated that go back years and says they all the same person, he included your IP 82 and claims you are doing "cross-wiki disruption". I believe innocent people are caught up in Abd's study. I have complained to the Wikimedia Foundation but no action has yet been taken. I believe this guy should be globally banned.82.132.226.145 (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Wikipedia and Wikiversity are separate projects... which means that we here at Wikipedia can't "globally ban" someone over there at Wikiversity. If you have complained to the WMF, you probably have done all you can do. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikiversity or no, it should go. It's an abuse of WMF resources for web hosting. Also Abd's offsite outing of jps should qualify him for a siteban to go with his enWP ban. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    82.21.88.44 is there any chance you can confirm you are not me. You said you are emailing the Wikimedia foundation on Meta-Wiki. The situation has now got out of hand. Abd is now attacking you, JZG, myself and other Wikipedia users here making false statements [28]. Abd should be blocked. Can an admin look at this? 82.132.223.81 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like there are multiple issues here that are being conflated:

    1. A deletion request for v:Cold fusion
    2. Cross wiki user behavior (ie. at meta)
    3. User behavior on non-wikimedia sites

    A deletion request at en-wv is the wrong venue for addressing #2 & #3, and the latter two concerns are not valid reasons covered in our policy for deleting a resource. This noticeboard is also not an appropriate venue for any of those three concerns. IMHO, cross-wiki and/or off-wiki issues should be brought up at meta. I am more than willing to discuss any concerns related to activity on wikiversity or other wikimedia sites. Feel free to ping me and point me to a talk page. I would like to respectfully request that this notice be closed as there is no reasonable action that an admin here could take against a user that is indef community banned. Also, it is contributing to contentious exchanges on my home project. --mikeu talk 21:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think inasmuch as that resource refers to content that was and is published on Wikipedia, it is of relevance to this board. Since SUL is implemented, those with accounts here have accounts there, of course. I would encourage those who are upset about the situation to comment over there while respecting the policies and guidelines of the sister project. I see this as a reasonable venue to have a discussion about issues such as this. If not here, then where? jps (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing we can do here about the free-for-all that is Wikiversity. I've never been convinced that the general public distinguishes between the different WMF projects, but that's another issue for another day. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually the issue is far from resolved but this section can probably be closed. Abd is now filing an undeletion request for an attack piece he wrote about different users https:/meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_deletion. 82.21.88.44 this may interest you as Abd has confused you and myself on his study. I recommend that any further discussions about this now take place on Meta-Wiki. I will not further respond here. 82.132.247.16 (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Collins (writer)

    Recently created over a redirect, appears to be about a new age fringe writer. More eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 03:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation Museum

    Recent persistent removal of WP:PSCI material, I have to leave so additional watchlisters welcome. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    On my watch list now. User:2600:1:9185:BF78:8023:EAFB:A27:CB5A was blocked for 18 hours. Perhaps that is enough to discourage him. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Overton window again

    May I please ask for some participation at Talk:Overton window#Vox video on Overton window. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=816847096"