Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality is maintained.
  • Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
  • To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.
Sections older than 12 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:FTN-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

  • If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead.
  • Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact.
  • Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:




Talk:British Israelism[edit]

Complaint on the talk page that this article is negative. Doug Weller talk 04:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm alone here with a British Israelite who doesn't understand how we work and has a lot more time than I do to write screeds on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, I'll join the discussion this weekend.Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@LutherBlissetts: Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It's getting a bit worse. There's a problem with original research. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Although to be fair, they've spotted a few bad sources and I agree with them that the genetics section needs sources that actually discuss the subject. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm considering giving this article up. I'm told that BI's views are the majority view and another adherent has joined in, so I'm outnumbered. My argument that sources need to discuss the topic have fallen upon deaf ears and I know tat some good editors don't think that they need to directly discuss it. (This is mainly about the genetics section). Doug Weller talk 06:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Please. Nobody said it's the beliefs of the BI are the majority view of Christianity, on the contrary (see Talk), however the beliefs and evidences of the British-Israel movement is, and ought to be, the majority viewpoint on an article titled 'British Israelism', instead, when I stumbled upon the article, it was obviously violating WP:NPOV as stated not by just myself, but many others on the talk page. It was clearly a coatrack for anti white supremacy critics and others. Any casual reader would find almost no real information on the subject, and come away with a feeling that British-Israelism is a group of racists, with zero proofs of any kind, which is simply not true. Wilfred Brown (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
No it should not, no more then (dare I godwin this) the view of what the flat earthers were should be based on what flat eathers think or be used as the base of the flat earth article. It is not a violation of NPOV to put all POV with the majority POV getting prominence.Slatersteven (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of the article should neutrally describe what BI is and what it's proponents believe... but it should not do so in a way that makes the reader think it is accepted by a significant number of people. The reader needs to understand that it is widely rejected by historians, and is a fringe pseudohistorical concept. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger D. Craig[edit]

Roger D. Craig (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Minor character in the Who's Who of JFK conspiracy lore. There is insufficient material in reliable secondary sources, so what remains is a primary source, an e-mail posted on a forum (from the notorious unreliable Spartacus website, I might add), and a dead link that used to link to a collection of works by a conspiracy theorist (i.e. Penn Jones, Jr.). This appears to be a form of a coat rack onto which one can hang links to various conspiracy books, websites, and You Tube videos. Thoughts? Keep, Delete, or Redirect to something like Trial of Clay Shaw? - Location (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the sort of thing that should be deleted at AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I redirected it into the trial. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
...and apparently we're going to have to go down AFD Lane instead... Mangoe (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger D. Craig, BTW. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Per that decision, I merged the material to Trial of Clay Shaw. -Location (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Rfc notice in Talk:David Ferrie[edit]

David Ferrie (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

If interested, see Talk:David Ferrie#RfC about the inclusion of allegations made by William Gaudet. -Location (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking for an uninvolved editor to do the housekeeping for what appears to be a WP:SNOWCLOSE. -Location (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Beltran[edit]

Article on a psychic cyclist could use some work. Note that I'm taking Maxmillien de Lafayette,[1] author of over 2500 books according to his blurb on Amnazon, to RSN - we shouldn't be using UFO researchers as sources, and we use him for a load of BLPs.[2] Doug Weller talk 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have found absolutely ZERO WP:FRIND compliant sources on this person. Thus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Beltran. jps (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman[edit]

Goldacre calls her a pseudoscientist with good reason: [3].
I took a shot at answering this editor's initial requests, but I'm not seeing the necessary progress in the responses where FRINGE, BLP, ARBPS, and COI apply. Someone want to give it go? --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
(musing) Hmm. Before my wife and I were married some years ago, my Mom sent me Gittleman's Fat Flush book and we used it successfully to get nice and trim for our wedding. Does that give me a conflict of interest? Just in case it does, I've restricted my activity in that article to just maintenance edits, although I recognized the pseudoscience in the book. (Pseudoscience aside, the basic plan advocates reducing carbs, eating healthy foods especially vegetables, drinking plenty of non-sugary liquids, and getting moderate regular exercise; but any plan like that will work regardless of what you name it or how many thousand words of junk science you write about it). ~Anachronist (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Species Branding Hypothesis[edit]

Seeking Help from Life science Experts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis

The draft above discusses a grand problem in Biology "The species Problem"... The draft is titled 'Species Branding Hypothesis' and (as I believe) has the solution to this age old problem.

I am concern that my draft could be rejected out as belonging to "Fringe theories"... I need help from Subject Matter Experts who are Biologist dealing with Taxonomy, systematics, Evolutionary biology etc... to validate the draft and add support...

Kind regards, Joseph J.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A major problem I see right away is that it's written like an essay, not an article. 2600:1017:B002:16FB:4ECB:2A49:85CD:2F31 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, for the theory itself, you seem to be citing your own work. This suggests you may have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) in creating this page. Equally important, it suggests a notability problem - for a theory to be notable, it needs to have received significant detailed coverage in sources independent of the proposer. You are using a lot of references to support your thesis, but not to support the fact that anyone else knows your theory even exists, and that it makes a meaningful contribution to the field of study. Agricolae (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Worse yet, he's citing his own self-published work. That last paragraph alone is evidence that this has no place here. --00:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Now under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis[edit]

Robert Sungenis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Let's include a list of self-published books from a fringe Catholic geocentrist on his biography page, shall we? That's a reasonable thing to do, right?

[4]

I don't have the patience to deal with this ongoing nonsense.

jps (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that some of this stuff is what he is noted for, yes we should include a list of his works. It is his writing and film making that he is noted for. he is not "famous for being famous, but for his advocacy (I.E. talking about) "of Catholic apologetics and his advocacy of a pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is the center of the universe", not (for example) not doing anything.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Sungenis is not "noted" for his vanity publications. The list is pure WP:SOAP. jps (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Err yes he is [5] [6], that is precisely what he is note for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
My god you're tiresome. Neither of those sources show that what makes Sungenis notable is that list of self-published books. jps (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Are there independent sources who discuss his self published books? Because without such sources, it's difficult to say that they are noteworthy or WP:DUE in any way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Lay of the PA's please. No one has sdaid that that list of works make him notable, only that he is noted for some of the works in that list. Do not misrepresent what other edds say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
We have two RS (form the article) discussing some of his work here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You have no "RS" that discuss the corpus as you desired to have it listed. Most of the self-published books are noticed by exactly no one. jps (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I neither desire nor not desire to list his works, I disagreed with your (lack of) reason for deleting it. As I said on the talk page, the fact not all the works are not notable does not give justification for removing the whole section. What id would do is justify removing the non notable works. It was your block deletion with out a valid explanation rather then attempting to work towards a workable solution I objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The notable works are already included in the article. There is no point in having a list. It's not okay to revert when you have no justification for the inclusion. jps (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No, they are not. Two are now listed on the talk page that are not referenced in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As a general rule we don't list all of the works of persons known for promoting fringe theories. Unless some evidence of independent notability can be found our normal practice is not to include that sort of thing per PROFRINGE, NOTADVERT and DUE. I'm not seeing any compelling reason for inclusion of most these and to be frank, this smell like an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I will add that we make reference to "Sungenis' writings include antisemitic ideas, sources, and claims ", yet do not list what these are. If they are notable enough to be mentioned in passing they are notable enough to be listed. I (again) am not arguing for inclusion of them all, but if we say "he has written about X" we should include what he has written. Again this is not an argument for exclusion of the section, but of it being more discriminatory.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You're hardly the most objective user considering the fact that you argue in favor of damn near every fringe theory that shows up here. 2600:1017:B005:8064:97FC:D982:7F45:5A29 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
And this is not about me, comment on the content not the user.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

So is it or is it not true that not all of Mr Sungenis's publications (that have been reported on in RS) are not mentioned in the article? Is it also not true that we actually were (in the article) discussing one of his books but I had to (yesterday) actually add the title of that book? Thus (as of the ranching of this thread) the article did not mention (by name) all of his notable works.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment, as User:Tachyon1010101010 points out, other articles about Catholic apologists tend to include exhaustive lists of publications, for example Peter Kreeft. I think it may be appropriate to examine that practice in more detail, particularly under WP:NOT and WP:DUE. But this article is not those, and the fact that certain other articles may not meet our guidelines should have no bearing on this discussion. I do not think that a list of publications of non-influential publications belongs in an article. If any individual publications are discussed in reliable secondary sources, then the views of those secondary sources can be described with attribution in the text of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The reasons why I think the Robert Sungenis Wikipedia page should have a publications/bibliography section are:

1.) He is a recognized scholar in the field of Catholic Apologetics. The following scholars from various fields (Theology, Physics, Astronomy, etc.) have endorsed his work:

Not By Faith Alone: a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Ronald K. Tecelli, S.J. c.) Dr. Robert Fastiggi d.) Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas e.) Karl Keating f.) Rev. George W. Rutler g.) Scott Hahn, Ph.D. h.) Patrick Madrid i.) Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. j.) William Marshner k.) Rev. Paul Rothermel l.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D. m.) Professor John Saward n.) Rev. Pablo Gadenz o.) Professor Philip Blosser p.) Dr. Arthur Sippo q.) Steve Ray

Not By Bread Alone: a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Reverend Mitchell Pacwa c.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D.

Not By Scripture Alone: a.) Dr. Peter Kreeft

Galileo was Wrong The Church Was Right: a.) Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D. b.) Vincent J. Schmithorst, Ph.D. c.) Gerald Benitz, M.A., Ph.D. d.) Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D. e.) E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. f.) Joseph A. Strada, Ph.D. g.) Russell T. Arndts, Ph.D. h.) Thaddeus J. Kozinski, Ph.D. i.) Martin G. Selbrede j.) John Domen, M.S. k.) John Salza

2.) Not all his writings are self-published. If self-published was really the problem, then why not only include works that are not self-published?

Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, Queenship Publishing (1996), 774 pp. ISBN 1-57918-008-6

Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Queenship Publishing (1997), 650 pp. ISBN 1-57918-055-8

How Can I Get to Heaven? The Bible's Teaching on Salvation Made Easy to Understand, Queenship Publishing (1997), 334 pp. ISBN 1-57918-007-8

Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Queenship Publishing (2000), 450 pp. ISBN 1-57918-124-4

The Gospel According to Matthew (Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, Vol. 1), Queenship Publishing (2003), 427 pp. ISBN 1-57918-236-4

The Apocalypse of St. John (Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, Vol. 2), Queenship Publishing (2007), 544 pp. ISBN 1-57918-329-8

The Consecration of Russia: How Seven Popes Failed to Heed Heaven’s Command and Brought Turmoil to the Church and the World, Hometown Publications, Inc. copyright 2013, 384 pages, ISBN 978-0-9841859-9-3.

3.) Both Slatersteven and Nomoskedasticity have made valid arguments in the Robert Sungenis Talk Page that have not been refuted. Sungenis writings have been mentioned in secondary sources. Why not mention only those writings in the publication/bibliography section if the problem really was whether or not they are mentioned in secondary sources?

4.) There is a broad consensus in Wikipedia of allowing BLPs to have Publications/Bibliography sections.

5.) Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.

Conclusion: The Robert Sungenis Wikipedia page should have a Bibliography/Publications section.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The guy pushes FRINGE science and you write that scholars from Physics, Astronomy have endorsed his work? Please read WP:PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe they did not endorse his Physics or Astronomy? he writes about more then just those two things.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sungenis is a recognized scholar in the field of Catholic Apologetics. Even if you remove Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right and the scholars who endorsed it, you are still left with all these theologians and apologists who have endorsed his apologetic work:

a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Ronald K. Tecelli, S.J. c.) Dr. Robert Fastiggi d.) Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas e.) Karl Keating f.) Rev. George W. Rutler g.) Scott Hahn, Ph.D. h.) Patrick Madrid i.) Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. j.) William Marshner k.) Rev. Paul Rothermel l.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D. m.) Professor John Saward n.) Rev. Pablo Gadenz o.) Professor Philip Blosser p.) Dr. Arthur Sippo q.) Steve Ray r.) Reverend Mitchell Pacwa s.) Dr. Peter Kreeft

Sample of the Endorsements

Not By Faith Alone

Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas: “While this present work is clearly scholarly, it must be distinguished from many other efforts along these lines over the past five centuries.”

Dr. Scott Hahn: “What may come as a surprise, however, is the fact that this work represents the first book-length response by an American Catholic to Protestant attacks against the Catholic Church’s teaching on faith and justification in more than half a century — perhaps longer, since I am not familiar with a single title written in the 20th century!”

Dr. Arthur Sippo: “This book not only deals with the historic debates on the question of justification dating from the 16th century, it is also the first apologetic book to directly challenge the recent writings of Protestant critics of Catholicism such as McGrath, Sproul, Geisler, McCarthy, MacArthur, White, et al.”

Dr. Robert Fastiggi: “This study shows Robert Sungenis to be a theologian and scholar of the first rank.”

Not By Bread Alone

Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz: "Robert Sungenis has prepared a wonderful defense and explanation of the Holy Eucharist based on Sacred Scripture and Catholic theology.”

Reverend Mitchell Pacwa: “Robert Sungenis' examination of the Catholic teaching on the Mass is a careful, step by theological step understanding of a key doctrine. He gives the reader the Scripture passages and exegesis, the Patristic and the Conciliar documentation.”

Dr. Thomas Howard: "Robert Sungenis' work - all of it - fills the word "exhaustive" with fresh, and even exhilarating, significance.”

Not By Scripture Alone

Dr. Peter Kreeft: "This book is the single most important, systematic, logical, sustained, direct, multifaceted treatment of this central issue that I know of."

The EndTachyon1010101010 (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Nordic Israelism[edit]

As is happening with British Israelism, this article seems to have a number of sources that are just minor websites and is promoting a minor group that wouldn't merit an article and may not be much more than a few people and a website for all I can tell. 13:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talkcontribs)

I removed the external links per WP:ELNO #2 but I'm not sure about removing them from the references. They are used as citations to statements such as "Icelandic Nordic Israelists believe..." The websites have no reasonable justification for saying what they say, but they do confirm the beliefs described. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal Fringe[edit]

RfC was withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see Talk:Plummer_v._State#Request_for_Comment_-_Internet_meme_section where the dispute is over how to source discussion of FRINGE legal concepts. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the above description of what the dispute is about. Rather than post my possibly flawed view of what the dispute is about, I encourage the interested reader to read the actual discussion at Talk:Plummer_v._State. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not believe there is such a thing as "legal fringe" and I have never seen this terminology used in any legal secondary sources. Either it is the law in that jurisdiction; it is not the law in that jurisdiction; there are courts, districts or circuits differing opinion to what the law is; it is a novel area of law not decided upon yet in the jurisdiction; or for some other reason, it is uncertain how a judge in the jurisdiction might rule on it.
I am confused as to why we would want to document non-lawyer's bogus opinions about the law in sources written by authors who are equally unqualified to comment on the law. How about we just focus on independent high quality secondary sources as required by WP:RS, such as law reviews. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Law in the U.S. is not binary nor black and white, it is gray. It is always based on the facts and the law, both statutory and case (or common law) and is more like a sliding scale than a simple yes or no decision. Next, strict standards like WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to legal articles, so requiring a law review article or legal tome is not applicable. Finally, you mention (indirectly) that the source should be written by people who are qualified to comment on the law. In other words, lawyers. I think that we'll hear from those at the RFC, just like we have on every other issue that JYTDog has brought up. Thus far, consensus has gone against him every time, likely due to the intricacies of the law and the legal citation system. GregJackP Boomer! 07:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
No one is saying anything about MEDRS except you. Why are you discussing it? You are casting more bullshit around, like a litigator does. This one is not going to go your way as you are violating policy up the wazoo here.
We will see tho! Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss content without casting aspersions at contributors. It would be nice if you would quit forum shopping and direct all discussion to one location. GregJackP Boomer! 07:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I just posted a neutral notice here and responded to two people who posted confused things under it. I have posted my !vote there and all I am doing at this point is responding to your misrepresentations there. Would be very happy if you would stop so I can just sit back and watch what folks have to say. Jytdog (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the law is often gray, especially when one applies it to new and complex fact patterns. What I meant to convey above is that legal writing, whether in statutes, case law, secondary sources, legal memos, etc., is generally distinct and precise in describing what the law is in various or specific jurisdiction, exactly how to apply it to the case at bar, rather than muddy things with vagueness and ambiguity. In the particular case, the writing by a retired law enforcement officer about various things he sort of remembers or doesn't remember about some training he took years ago at the police academy is not good legal writing and should not be the basis for deciding whether various alt right web-sites have any idea of the extent to which an Indiana Supreme Court case from 1893 is still good law in Indiana, whether it is persuasive in any other jurisdiction, and how it might be properly applied today. I just don't see why we are even considering such unreliable sources for a Wikipedia article on a court case. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
FRINGE in Wikipedia means opinions about X that are way outside the mainstream- beyond minority. Like Infowars claiming that the Supreme Court says you can kill a cop if you think the arrest is not valid. If there is some law review that addresses that, it would be great. Find one. This is the second time you have completely misunderstood the problem. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
If it is fringe by that definition, then it probably won't be in the law reviews or any other similar quality WP:RS, and hence there would be no reason to cover it. And according to our standards, as I remember them, we leave out non-notable fringe theories. Problem solved. If I have misunderstood the "problem", what is the "problem"? This seems straight-forward. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
You don't understand why we have a FRINGE guideline nor its WP:PARITY section. Jytdog (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I must admit, I had never carefully read WP:PARITY until now. I am shocked that it allows unreliable fringe theories to be articulated and then debunked by equally unreliable sources out of some sense of "fairness". I just thought editors had been blatantly violating and disregarding our rules about quality sourcing when they were, in fact, just following this terrible guideline. It's bad enough to apply it to science, and now extend the scope to law? Yuck. I will oppose that it if it comes up. It just reduces the quality of our articles to cite to such low quality sources. I would love to hear about any other major encyclopedia, like Britannica, that does this. It is hard to imagine. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't read WP:PARITY the same way (i.e. "that it allows unreliable fringe theories to be articulated and then debunked by equally unreliable sources"), but I don't doubt that others do. My experience with this is in articles about and related to various JFK conspiracies that are drenched with unreliable sources which are in turn combated with tons of reliable primary source information because reliable secondary sources don't bother with it. Perhaps WP:PARITY needs further discussion/clarification in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. -Location (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Location Thanks for seeing my concern. It just seems like it goes directly against the language I have read over and over again in WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:RSSELF, etc. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.... If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. It just seems strange to me that we would set aside key standards about WP:SECONDARY just to present, talk about, and then debunk these so-called "fringe" theories, rather than simply ignore them entirely, giving them the attention they deserve: NONE. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. As for JFK, yeah, that's certainly a good case to consider: I imagine there should be high quality secondary sources that speak to the issue. I'll be there are plenty of historians and film reviewers who have commented extensively on Oliver Stone's movie. In fact, I think I have read some. Maybe I'll review the article we have on that to see what we did there. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Okay I looked at it (John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. That didn't take long. Horrifying. Nearly all of it looks like WP:OR. I don't see the point of the article that list every one of the books. If a book about a "JFK conspiracy theory" is notable, it needs to be mentioned in independent secondary sources. Otherwise, why bother with it? If John Q. Public makes a blog with some new novel theory does it immediately qualify to be included? --David Tornheim (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory[edit]

Wow. This is really bad even by the generally poor standard we see for most Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory articles. Hopelessly POV and PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Even without reading the article - although I have multiple times over the years - it is clear from the References section that this is another one of those articles largely built upon the claims of fringe sources (e.g. Baker, Douglas, Lane, Marr, Summers) that are rebutted by primary source material (e.g. the reports and supporting documents of the Warren Commission and HSCA) in the name of WP:PARITY. In my opinion, the claims of fringe sources should only be included to the extent that they are addressed in reliable secondary sources. Unfortunately, I have had poor luck getting others to agree. -Location (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The article can certainly be improved. But this seems to me to be a pretty sweeping condemnation. Independent journalists are not necessarily wrong because they disagree with the government. What, for example, makes Anthony Summers "fringe"? Has he made suggestions clearly rebutted by facts uncovered by the government investigations? What's an example? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The suggestion that Oswald did not act alone is rebutted by the facts uncovered by the government investigations. Where Summers' views have been reported in reliable secondary sources, they should could be included. Unfortunately, throughout our Wikipedia articles we have a lot of cherry-picking of his claims and speculations even when secondary sources have not reported on them. When something is a WP:REDFLAG, it needs to meet certain standards before inserting it into an article. -Location (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, this article is nakedly one sided. It repeatedly makes reference to the report of the House Committee on Assassinations, even noting that its conclusions were based on acoustic evidence, without bothering to mention that the evidence has been debunked. The whole article is a PROFRINGE COATRACK masquerading as an encyclopedic article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
"The suggestion that Oswald did not act alone is rebutted by the facts uncovered by the government investigations." Well, no. There you have our basic disagreement. First of all the HSCA concluded likely conspiracy, and not just based on the acoustic evidence. People working on the the HSCA, including much of its leadership, investigators and subject matter experts agreed: conspiracy.
Furthermore, you study can any number of references (Sylvia Meagher is a classic) that compare the actual facts of the assassination with the Warren Commission's conclusions and find, to make a long story short, a dramatic mismatch.
Look, editor Location is making some great edits. And I'll be the first to agree that some sources used in these articles should never be used (Fetzer, Marrs). But there's a tendency for the editors to push the idea anything that suggests conspiracy is FRINGE, and I'll continue to disagree. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the totality of the HSCA findings the way you do, but I do agree with your point that there are some conspiracy beliefs that are more fringe than others. -Location (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ad Orientem: Excellent point. Pages 196 to 225 of the HSCA final report discuss the CIA and the conclusion that they were not involved, yet their findings are not summarized in the article. I imagine that there are various reliable secondary sources that discuss this finding, too. -Location (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
People working on the the HSCA, including much of its leadership, investigators and subject matter experts agreed: conspiracy. That's simply not true, Joe, beyond the belief of many of those people going into the investigation in the first place. As for the actual investigation, the ONLY evidence which convincingly established "conspiracy" was the acoustic evidence. But that "proof" turned out to be debunked in the end. This is borne out by the fact that the only evidence in the final report (which concluded "conspiracy") that does not appear in the draft report (which concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish conspiracy) was... the acoustic evidence. The dissent is explicit on this and this is further borne out by the listing of "factors" in the final report which is not evidence, instead "factors" such as the scientific investigations did not preclude a conspiracy, and that a Ruby/Oswald relationship couldn't be dismissed as readily as the WC had done, even though compelling evidence of an actual relationship was lacking! Read the various areas of investigations in the report - NONE rise to the conclusion of "conspiracy" save for the scientific acoustic evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:LGBTQ people buried alongside[edit]

Article was deleted. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This needs major pruning of fantasy relationships, e.g. Anne Sullivan and Helen Keller. Mangoe (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Does this article even have purpose?Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, apparently it does, as another place to allege homosexuality. I haven't read Alan Bray's book, but from what I've seen in reviews its position on the relationships is way more subtle than the assertion that they were sexual in the modern sense—or for that matter, sexual at all, and given how many older claims are being justified through it, that is a problem. The more I think about it, however, the more I come to question the notability of the ostensible subject matter. It would be more surprising for famous couples not to buried near each other. But not that surprising. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more arbitrary and less encyclopedic I think this list is, and the more I think it should be proposed for deletion. WP is not a repository for indiscriminate lists. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Wikipedia has historically had much more lax standards in terms of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH for lists than regular articles (e.g. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming). The general rule is that if an easy-to-define standard can be explained in the WP:LISTCRITERIA, then you can have the list. The "encyclopedic" nature of the list is assumed based on an ability to verifiably populate the list. I'm not a fan of this, but that's what has happened here. jps (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

All rather moot as it has been deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ten Lost Tribes and Pseudohistory[edit]

The problems I mentioned above concerning British Israelism are spreading. New edits to Ten Lost Tribes, removal of Ten Lost Tribes and British Israelism from Pseudohistory. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Forgot. 1 of the 3 current editors in BI topics (User:Scynthian declares he is an official of a branch of the British-Israel World Federation, another fairly inactive one User:Michael A Clark I'm pretty sure is (although he doesn't respond on his talk page), the third, User:Wilfred Brown who I do not think is a member of the BIWF says he's studied Bi for 33 years but points out that he hasn't stated his personal belief, although he doesn't seem to agree that it's fringe. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)