Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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:

List of Christian thinkers in science[edit]

Is this list questionable? It seems to have little encyclopedic value, given there's minimal evidence for the majority of them that Christianity had any connection with their work, or even that they had any significant writings on Christianity. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it even specifically notable as per WP:NOTABILITY? John Carter (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably not. nominated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
There are probably dozens of Things That Wikipedia Is Not that could be applied here. But the topic of the article has clearly received substantial coverage by reliable and independent sources. If it is not notable, then why is List of atheists in science and technology notable? Most of them didn't write anything substantial about that topic. The existence of the other lists necessitates this list, especially for the pre-modern era where all Europeans were Christian by default. (This is not WP:OTHERSTUFF; it means that without this list every scientist born before 1700 was Jewish or Muslim.) Roches (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Which of the people on here are actually notable Christian thinkers? I'll grant you Hildegard of Bergen and Isaac Newton. Name ten others from 1401 and later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
There's some discussion on the talk page about whether the article is a list of scientists who were notable Christian thinkers or a list of scientists who were Christians. I think it is the latter. List of Christian scientists redirects to this article, but that phrase is associated with Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science. Changing the title, or changing the introductory content, could be done without deleting the article. Roches (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It's an irredeemable mess. Newton is listed but he was a natural philosopher not a scientist, and he actually refused to take Holy Orders even though it was, at that time, mandatory for metriculation from Cambridge (he did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity). There's an interesting intersection between Christianity and science in the Jesuit community, the Pope has a science degree, but this is not an article about that, it's an article that seeks to show that there is no incompatibility between science and religious dogma based on fallacious appeals to authority, syllogistic fallacies and begging the question. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


jps (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The article was kept on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT, removal of the philosophers and natural philosophers was reverted on the basis that people want to present all of scientific thought since forever as being science, a move to list of scientists with Christian faith was reverted for no reason at all. This article is a festering sore. The group of editors who own it seem to think there is no problem at all with calling Isaac Newton a Christian thinker despite his rejection of the Trinity, refusal to take holy orders, and the consensus of sources that he was deist not a Christian, oh and byb the way he was a mathematician and natural philosopher not a scientist. This article is WP:SYN from the title down. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of thinking that this is something which might have to be taken to DRN or ANI myself. I am the first to say that for all I know there might be notability for the topic, maybe, but I haven't seen anything which addresses the matter of of criteria for inclusion or exclusivon. That being the case, this looks to me like having some serious behavior issues involved which probably have to be addressed somewhere by some independent parties. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's an instance where AfD was probably not the best answer, though WP:TNT is tempting when an article is as BAD as this one. I started going through and removing unrelated commentary and poorly sourced material. There is a lot of it. Realize that to be included on the list the person has to be referenced in a third-party source as (1) being in science and technology and (2) having prominent Christian beliefs that third-party sources have identified as relevant to their notability. Otherwise, remove the people. Also, a lot of the commentary that is being included in the article is irrelevant. This is a list so WP:MOSLIST we should follow. jps (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this article. Excellent sources, interesting, notable, relevant. I'm detecting bias by certain progressive-leaning majority users here.--Sιgε |д・) 15:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd also note that it looks like no actual fringe theory (nor even any other theory) has been mentioned in this discussion, and none seems to be obviously connected with it. Thus the question seems to have little to do with this noticeboard. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a fringe theory associated with a certain common argument that creationists are known to make: namely that Christianity was vital for the development and progress of science. This is somewhat incidental to this list, but it is possible to see this rather synthetic accumulation as a sort of soapbox for this claim. We should be on guard for this, of course. By itself, there is nothing wrong with such a list, but, for example, the inclusion criteria are still being discussed at the talkpage and we should be mindful of the fact that certain fringe theories could be (wittingly or unwittingly) promoted depending on how the criteria/sourcing is chosen to work. jps (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You're making a claim with no evidence that itself is ironically fringe in toto. This article is actually quite notable and interesting even for non-Christians, notwithstanding the fact that Christianity is the world's most popular religion. Moreover, there should be a "Muslim thinkers in science" page in my opinion, but you're using a red herring. You like to complain a lot.--Sιgε |д・) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It's simply a fact that creationists have tried to argue that there are more scientists who are Christian than aren't. Additionally, the article name has been changed to conform with the list titles of other articles. jps (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiHsC[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiHsC

Thoughts and comments welcome.

jps (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Over two thirds of the sources cited are to the author of the term itself, thus the article functions primarily as self promotion. — Cirt (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional help at this AfD would be appreciated. It is currently being railroaded by a number of accounts who are arguing over the claims of the theory rather than the more problematic sourcing and WP:NFRINGE issues. jps (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, deletion went through, but my attempt to remove this from other articles in Wikipedia is being resisted. jps (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fringe science organizations[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fringe science organizations

Another article that is a synthesis, in my opinion. Please comment.

jps (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I think VQuakr has the right idea here. Move to List of fringe science organizations, and remove any that fail WP:RS. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
A little help here? The current trajectory is for another "no consensus" outcome. jps (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy[edit]

Water fluoridation controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Look at this article. The lede includes nothing about the fact that water fluoridation is perhaps one of the most successful public health initiatives ever undertaken (where it hasn't been sabotaged by pseudoscientific conspiracy theorists). The entire thing treats the conspiracy theorists as though they have a valid point. Can we get some help here?

jps (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has established many articles that IMHO were created to appease a virulent anti-fluoridation crowd. Water fluoridation is a strong article that remains well curated because the antifluoridation advocates have not been able to find WP:MEDRS sources that would make fluoridation anything but a major medical breakthrough. The antifluoridation groups are (fortunately for those supporting fluoridation) scientifically illterate so they are having trouble articulating what they feel so strongly about/against. The trade-off is that since the antifluoridation advocates cannot make any headway on the main article, many subsidiary niggling articles have been created:
So that is my view. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Why do I feel like I just stepped into a scene from Dr. Strangelove? On a more serious note, this is clearly POV pushing on a large scale. A lot of these articles should be trimmed or simply merged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
They are unlikely to be merged, as they are mostly fringe gumf they wont be allowed into the main articles due to lack of reliable sourcing and scientific support. Or any science at all in some cases. It would be like trying to merge Homeopathy into cancer treatments... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought Dr. Strangelove should be mentioned earlier in the article, because the fluoridation conspiracy is presented in that film as patently insane. Now, the Soviet Union fluoridated its water, but I guess there's nothing stopping them from using a Commie mind control plot on their own people, provided that it turns people into Communists. That would also explain why they stopped fluoridating in 1990. No Communism, no fluoride. Or maybe it had something to do with the economic collapse of the USSR. When water fluoridation is discontinued, it's for economic reasons. The article doesn't say that at all, as far as I can tell. When the program was introduced, people drank more tap water than they do now, and had less access to 'targeted' fluoridation from toothpaste and dentist visits. The changes mean that people get enough fluoride from other sources, so it's no longer cost-effective to fluoridate all the tap water. Roches (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to introduce Dr. Strangelove connections into that article years ago, if I recall correctly. It is super-suprising to me how much headway ideologues have made with respect to these nonsense claims. I would welcome and support a wholesale overhaul of these articles. jps (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You know you're just whacking yourself off onyour own ego and circular logic right? "I'm right because I'm right lol silly conspiracy theorists ruining muh encyclopedia"--Sιgε |д・) 15:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Too much fluoride? jps (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this a Fringe Source?[edit]

This seems to have gotten into the article on Dorothy Kilgallen. It looks pretty fringe to me and I have serious doubts about it's being RS. But I'd like some other opinions before I take it out of the article. [1]. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The article contains the usual conspiracy fodder in which the "evidence" is built upon hearsay and speculation. Not remotely reliable. It does not help that the bio of the author indicates that her work on Kilgallen is noted in one of Richard Belzer's conspiracy books, Hit List. - Location (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Definitely an unreliable source.- MrX 15:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha! No. This is National Enquirer stuff. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Author Sara Jordan published her article a few years before Richard Belzer and his co-author cited it in their book Hit List. How can you hold her responsible for their conspiracy tripping?
Also, if you read the Jordan article carefully, you find that she used audio and video interviews of several people who knew Dorothy Kilgallen personally. They include her two hairdressers and a Pakistani graduate student at Columbia University law school named Ibne Hassan. Ibne lived at Dorothy Kilgallen's home for more than a year. He worked as a tutor for her young son. He knew mother and son personally. He and the son were sleeping in separate rooms when Dorothy died in yet another room. Ibne saw police officers the next morning and afternoon.
You might think that a woman who was famous in the 1960s for gossiping could not possibly interact daily with a Pakistani graduate student at Columbia University law school, but she did. Sara Jordan's article is a reliable source. If she wanted to sensationalize very old show business gossip, why would she bother with an immigrant from Pakistan who earned (a few years after Dorothy died) a Doctor of Philosophy degree in political science?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Not a reliable source by any means. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Your theory makes no sense unless you can prove that Sara Jordan somehow forced Richard Belzer and his co-author to quote her article in their book. Her article was published a few years before their book was. Jordan was 18 years old in 2007 when her article was published. She had lived her entire life in Iowa. How can she know Mr. Belzer or his co-author personally, let alone force them to do anything? The references to her article stay in the Wikipedia article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It deeply saddens me that this woman is remembered more for her death than her life. With regards to the fringe theory it's definitely not RS and should not be given any substance by wikipedia. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Human photosynthesis[edit]

This page just got created:

Human photosynthesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anyone know if this is a notable fringe theory? Kolbasz (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not finding discussion in independent sources. If it has only been written about by people promoting the idea, it won't be possible to write a sensible article. The article also seems to cover several distinct ideas, some of which might be better placed in the article on inedia, which is a notable topic. --Amble (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I've heard it a few times and it might be worth an article on various fringe theories presented in context. This current version is leaning too heavily on research from the Human Photosynthesis Study Center (whose website will sell you a box of "QIAPI 1" photosynthesis pills for $55) and giving absurd OR analysis ("a long distance swimmer had a suntan, so was probably photosynthesising") - I've cleaned it up a little and restored the synth/medrs templates I put there yesterday.
The article creator has the username PhototrophicHuman and is uploading imagery by Ty Shedleski as their "own work". (Their first draft of the article opened "Human photosynthesis or phototrophism is a hypothesis by neuroscientist Ty Shedleski".) --McGeddon (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Voted. I critiqued the journals cited in the article as at least 3 of the 5 are questionable. Roches (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

From a purely scientific standpoint it's total bullshit. It's basic organic chemistry. Krebs is turning in his grave. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Bong-Han[edit]

Kim Bong-han (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous AfD closed as no consensus and noted a pressing need for substantial work to remedy real problems. Edits in the last six months: pretty much nothing - not even fixing the miscapitalisation of the article name. Article is still an abject failure of WP:NPOV. AfD'd again, the same "keep and clean up" comments. From the same people who didn't clean it up last time. This is one thing that annooys the hell out of me: people who want an article and will argue passionately for it, but cannot be arsed ot fix major issues. Rant over. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Miscapitalization? AFAICT, it's following WP:NCKOREAN. Kolbasz (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
We did manage to delete the auxiliary article on the primo-vascular system. It may be that this particular doctor is famous for his attempts to justify acupuncture in the same way that, for example, Jacques Benveniste is famous for water memory. The problem is that there aren't a lot of independent sources written about the person. jps (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque[edit]

There appears to be POV pushing legitimacy on this alt med topic. More eyes would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that shit again... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw what you did there. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 09:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Lane[edit]

I have opened a thread in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mark Lane. - Location (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


There exists a template, {{Skeptoid}}, used to link episodes of Skeptoid to articles. I do not think this is appropriate. I respect Brian Dunning's work but driving traffic to his websites is not in our mission, and his wire fraud conviction suggests we should be wary of offering any official-looking endorsement. I have nominated it for deletion, people here are likely to be familiar with Skeptoid and may have an opinion. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think there was a user in the past who was systematically removing Skeptoid links in all articles which also seemed like overkill. I don't think a template is something we should be encouraging especially now that VE has a user-friendly citation template. Yeah, I agree with deleting this. jps (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This is entirely harmless. It just a template for properly and consistently formatting ELs, not a navbox or other prominent display. This is no different than, say, Template:Findagrave. Unless we are saying that we shouldn't have these links in EL, then there is zero reason to delete this. A template providing consistent formatting is not an "endorsement". Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. I have no problem with people creating their own userspace templates and then plopping in a subst if they want to include it, but putting it in main wikispace is an endorsement of the source. I note that Skeptoid broadcasts have been linked to rather broad topics sometimes where they are inappropriate. For obscure fringe topics, Skeptoid can be a great external link, but for topics like circumcision, well, that's another matter. jps (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a decision that can be made at the individual article level, but that has nothing to do with the appropriateness of a template which is just a formatting tool. Gamaliel (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. I think having a template like this is an encouragement to link to as many pages as possible. I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia space and I certainly don't think it should exist without transclusion. jps (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Would forcing transclusion be an acceptable compromise? I understand your concerns about promoting links, but it seems silly to deprive editors of a valid tool in cases where the links are appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
How does forcing transclusion happen? Can you make subst part of the template or something? jps (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel:, I am not so sure it is a valid tool. Dunning's views on particular subjects can be cited to his books. The podcasts have no independent editorial oversight and often the same content appears with footnotes in a book anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

United States and state-sponsored terrorism[edit]

United States and state-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the above article, I have removed what are tantamount to conspiracy theories that the CIA was involved in a couple terrorist attacks (see [2], [3]). An extra set of eyes would be helpful. - Location (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a whole new seam of crazy that I had not encountered. Well done. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Global warming skepticism redirects[edit]

An interesting RfC is taking place here.

jps (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

June 1962 Alcatraz escape[edit]

It's not terribly wacko, but "evidence" that the Morris and the Anglin brothers may have made it out of the Bay alive was presented on the History Channel last night. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John and Clarence Anglin. - Location (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)