Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:




Gary Renard

Gary Renard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notable enough for a WP:FRINGEBLP? WP:AUTHOR? WP:GNG? Do we yet know who in the vast WP:Walled Garden of A Course in Miracles community is notable and who isn't? How do we decide? (At least Wayne Dyer did a huge number of PBS specials). jps (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

jps (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination). jps (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 Magic Words]. jps (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Dealing with some tedious arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination). In particular, there is a weird claim right now that the section to which WP:FRINGEBLP links doesn't apply to people is too tiresome to deal with. That and categories. Categories mean that the biography is notable. Looking at the editing history of Softlavender (talk · contribs), I am curious as to whether there is some sort of vested interest in New Age self-helpdom. Perhaps Oprah-inspired. jps (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Good grief, that's not what I said at all, as anyone can see. I have repeatedly said that the two topics that Gary Renard has written four books on, A Course in Miracles and New Thought, both have wide coverage on Wikipedia, including their own navboxes (Template:A Course in Miracles, Template:NewThought) and Categories (Category:A Course in Miracles, Category:New Thought). I have only said those things because you keep bringing up WP:NFRINGE, when the relevant guidelines are WP:NAUTHOR (which he easily meets, as detailed in the AfD) and WP:FRINGEBLP. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you not see where WP:FRINGEBLP links to WP:NFRINGE? I've tried to explain this to you, but you seem to ignore this. jps (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Haven't paid much attention to this but BLPFRINGE says "notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person" (mirroring WP:GNG). Independence would be the issue: has this person received decent coverage in RS outside the fringe spiritual milieu? There are plenty of examples of "walled gardens" where clusters of participants write about each other (in Theosophy, ufology, altmed, etc.) Alexbrn (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly this. When the ace in the hole is, "Oh, Wayne Dyer mentioned this person, so a biography is perfectly encyclopedic", you begin to think that there may not be a lot out there which is beyond the "do you believe in magic?" community patting each other on the back. jps (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes of course it is linked from that, but even the topics he (the author that easily meets WP:NAUTHOR) writes on greatly surpass that and are massively notable by Wikipedia standards, as I've said numerous times, so that's moot in itself. Softlavender (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The topics one writes on are not what makes one notable. If I write a book on ACIM or New Thought that rises to #12 on a sub-subsection of Amazon lists, that does not automatically make me notable. However, that is basically your argument and when I point out what Alexbrn is trying to say you reply with a repetition of the same strawman point. jps (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I never said the topics he writes on makes him notable. I've said he meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is of course (this is a general reply, so not indented as a reply to one user) one of the peculiarities of our concept of notability, a book can be more notable then the author (and yes I have even created just such a page). It seems a bit counter intuitive, but it is how Wikipedia functions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree on that point, and have dealt with self-generated author pages that had to go whereas their self-generated article on their book turned out to be notable once we got the author's hands off the article (he got blocked a few times) and re-wrote it. However, in this case, Renard's notability is independent of his first book. That's not to say the book would not meet notability as well; I'm pretty sure there used to be a wiki article on it at one point but somewhere along the line it got deleted (I vaguely recall the article being very crappily written). Softlavender (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I have said what I have to say on his notability on the AFD page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Tulli Papyrus

"The Tulli Papyrus is an oft-cited document of questionable origins that some have interpreted as evidence of ancient flying saucers." Someone has just added 10 cn tags, almost one per sentence, plus a refimprov tag - which seems a bad idea, it should be one or the other. Any takers? Doug Weller talk 12:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look good. Essentially, it's an anecdotal story by someone who said they once saw a papyrus that described an ancient UFO sighting, as described by a long lost issue of the Fortean Society magazine. The two or three seemingly reliable sources contained in the article are utilized as citations for some editor's WP:OR. A search reveals zero reliable sources that are independent of ufo believers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Found a couple reliable sources, but only enough to support a stub. Maybe best to merge it to Erich von Daniken, since he is the one most often associated with the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Even some ufologists doubt it [[1]], shame I am dubious about this as an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Useful source, nominal WP:PARITY, I added it in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Lionel Fanthorpe

Fringe writer with some pretty promotional unsourced stuff. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to say (given the fact he was moderately well known) it seems odd there are not more RS. It needs workSlatersteven (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Ghost Club

Tangentially related to Lionel, it's rather disgraceful that the revived Ghost Club is presented as if it was just a continuation of the original, seeing as the original was rather objective/skeptic and the newer versions that have cropped up are all fringe-pushers themselves.

Suggestions? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well given it's membership I am not sure there is an issue here. But it sure needs more sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Blood irradiation therapy

Does this article pass the smell test? I notice the phrase "This issue is subject to skepticism, but only in the part of the researchers, who are not acquainted with scientific publications on the topic, the vast majority of which are in Russian", which seems a little defensive and not really the way we do things. I also notice that earlier versions of the article[2] are a lot more skeptical, with "Its effectiveness and utility as a treatment has been questioned" appearing in the lede. Artw (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw this and was about to make a smartarse comment about my personal need for gamma irradiated blood if I need any topping up at the vet, when I saw the following paragraph in the lead ... It is not related to the practice of gamma irradiation of blood in transfusion medicine.
That's me told. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Definitely needs some work. Any time an article claims, as this one does, that the only reason anyone takes a skeptical view of a procedure is when they haven't read all the literature (the old, 'if you disagree with me you don't know what you are talking about' argument), that is a big red flag in terms of NPOV. Agricolae (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Extracorporeal irradiation has been around for a long time - at least as long as I've been in practice - and has yet to demonstrate unequivocal safety/efficacy. Quackwatch labels it "questionable", which is being very kind, IMHO. Per Roxy's query, I'd say there's a moderate but unpleasant odor emanating from this one. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Canada's Stonehenge

Canada's Stonehenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - looks like either WP:ARTSPAM or WP:BOOKSPAM (love the bit of text " says Freeman, a laughing, vigorous 78" which is copied from the source.[3] The site is actually known as the "Majorville medicine wheel" or "Majorville cairn"[4] although fringe sources refer to as the Alberta Sun Temple. We need an article for the medicine wheel. No we don't, while writing this I've done a stub for Majorville Cairn and Medicine Wheel site. The book article is notable but clearly pov. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you could probably nominate this one for an AfD. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Library angel

Library angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Almost at hoax level. Delete?

jps (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure it is a hoax, but it certainly seems to be not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a redirect to Post hoc ergo propter hoc or other equivalent fallacy of false attribution could be in order... but if the name is non-notable there's probably no point to keep it... —PaleoNeonate - 15:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
All I found was one tongue in cheek reference.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Prodded. we will see. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Well I thought my reason was valid, obviously. Could somebody explain why we need the article? -Roxy the dog. bark 21:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The only source the article had was this [5], which is a psychiatry paper about coincidence that smells like woo but fails to mention either Koestler or the supposed "library angel" phenomenon. Article is currently sourceless. A Google search produces a few hits, none of them I've seen look reliable. Geogene (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So it was de-PRODded, I checked the CSD criteria and am not sure if one fits exactly. It seems to me that if not deleted this could be merged into Arthur Koestler, but it may not even be notable enough to merit mention there (in which case even less to have an article)... AfD for a one-sentence article seems like a waste, but why not... if noone does it until I can get to it, I might nominate it soon. —PaleoNeonate - 22:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a hoax. This is more like Maxwell's demon.--Auric talk 23:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not enough notability in reliable sources for a stand alone article. It's now at Arthur_Koestler#The_Paranormal where it should be. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks LuckyLouie, I doubt your merge will be contested. —PaleoNeonate - 23:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
It was...by the same user who dePRODded the article. I contested back. jps (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I have asked them to explain why they think the article should be kept.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
... and I have also asked. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
When I noticed the PROD removal I added a link to this discussion on the article/redirect's talk page, and more recently I added a merged-to tag. We'll see if that's enough, along with your notices... When I saw the contester's argument I had the impression that they were not aware that it was a merge instead of only a redirect and that some discussion did take place about it. —PaleoNeonate - 10:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have disengaged from the deprodders Talk. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Squatty Potty

Uncritically relayed the health claims of the company. I've pecked at this a bit but there seems to be a lack of mainstream coverage with the exception of something from Skeptoid.[6] Is Skeptoid useful per WP:PARITY I wonder. Alexbrn (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There definitely is mainstream coverage of this product: E.g. [7], [8]. There are some good critical tidbits to be found in those pieces. jps (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The coverage, such as it is, appears to be mostly amusement - at least to my eye. The article itself smacks of WP:PROMO, and I'm not convinced it needs to be in the encyclopedia. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Nearly a decade ago, now, I had a conversation with User:DGG about what the biggest pitfall with Wikipedia was and he said that the problem was it didn't fork -- which is to say that serious scientific/math articles go in one project, popular culture in another, etc. I think no serious desk reference would ever consider the Squatty Potty encyclopedic, but at Wikipedia there is a community of editors who writes articles on just about every product that they see in the media. This is especially true in areas such as video games, media, and (most notoriously) Pokemon, but it necessarily causes consternation when there are claims that we as WP:FTN regulars need to monitor. My feeling is that we as WP:FTN regulars do our best to delete articles where WP:FRINGE is most clearly violated (or where, perhaps, other WP:N problems are seen) and make sure that uncritical WP:REDFLAGs don't go uncritically included in articlespace. Apart from that, I don't think we can get Wikipedia to be reimagined to avoid eye-rolling issues like this one. jps (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to note, the article is largely the result of WP:PAID editing too. IME it's no good trying to get things deleted if there's so much as a sniff of coverage, no matter how shit the quality. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
To the list of video games, media, and (most notoriously) Pokemon, provided by jps, I would like to add 'Wrestling in the USA'. Those guys have edit wars. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not think it is a fringe or even an unusual health claim that many people find it easier to defecate in a squatting position. I've noticed toilets of different heights. and a variety of devices. The problem here is different: this is a pure advertisement, and I've tagged it accordingly.
As for forking, what I suggested was a "Wikipedia2," which included all the contents of our familiar WP, and in addition content that did not require WP:N but only WP:V and NPOV, For some purposes I think people would use one, for some purposes the other. It could of course be said that Wikia does fairly well at this--and even that the improved state of Google as compared to ten years ago also meets the need. The advantage of this at the current time would be moving out 1/4 of our content, but the disadvantage would be using the Wikipedia name for it, which would dilute our reputation. And if we used a different name, COI people would still want to be in the regular WP.
But I do not think it correct to say for even wrestling, let alone products, that we accept everything. About half the articles on commercial products end up deleted, as do a substantial number of wrestling articles. Even many of the Pokemon articles that were here 10 years ago have been since merged. If what we have here bothers you, you need to look more often at the New Pages feed and see what gets submitted, or participate as an OTRS volunteer, and see the stuff that people ask to have included. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it should, at best, just be merged into squat toilet -- MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 14:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The unicorn ad might be notable enough for its own article, but I strongly suspect the product it advertised is not. I'd merge into squat toilet as well. Notice my herculean restraint in not making any "this is a shitty article" or "this doesn't pass the sniff test" comments. It wasn't easy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jakuen

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

This article doesn't smell right to me...

Darklight Shadows 21:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD: Rhonda Patrick (2nd nom.)

This AfD needs more opinions, and since the subject may be wading in the water of fringe theories, I thought I'd post here. On her own site, FoundMyFitness.com, she describes herself thusly:

FoundMyFitness is Dr. Rhonda Patrick. Rhonda has extensive research experience in the fields of aging, cancer, nutrition. the platform by which Rhonda shares her insight from years of academic study and research on the best ways to increase healthspan.

In the AfD there appears to be highly divergent views on what constitutes passing NACADEMIC and BASIC. Delta13C (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Lynne Kelly (science writer)

Lynne Kelly (science writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks like a curate's egg, some good, some bad. Skeptic but looks fringe for archaeology. Very clearly a promotional article from the start. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Supermoons happen every 14 months!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full moon cycle (2nd nomination).

The article that goes into ridiculously loving detail as to why this is has been put up for deletion. There is definitely original research in there (though arguably mostly WP:CALC), but I'm curious as to whether there is some astrological fringe-y-ness that I may have missed in my once over, therefore posting here!

jps (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Links between "The Trump Dossier" and the "Trump Jr Meeting"[9]

There seems to be a modest effort to retrospectively link Fusion GPS (the opposition-research firm which was hired by both Democrats and Republicans prior to the 2016 US Election) with Rinat Akhmetshin(a Russian lawyer who allegedly met with Donald Trump Jr in summer of 2016). This seems to be a conspiracy theory born in the last 2 weeks. I've found some reliable sources that attest to the fact that Senator Chuck Grassley has made Justice Department complaint against the company, but no reliable, independent reporting that links the company with the Russian lawyer. I expect this to heat up very soon. --Salimfadhley (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Flying ointment

Not sure if this is the best forum, but there seems to be quite a bit of OR regarding this article about a witchcraft-related subject going on. I've been poking through adding tags and cleaning things up, but there's quite a few problems. A lot of it is MOS type stuff, but I'm sure some regulars here could help with that, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Theory of The Month: Morse Code on Mars

http://www.disclose.tv/news/morse_code_on_mars_photos_showing_a_series_of_strange_patterns/132976

"...just a story conjured up by NASA to divert our attention from the truth... From the very start we are taught (brainwashed) that there is a molten core in the centre of earth, but the reality could be something else that NASA or the concerned authorities do not want us to know as it will shake our belief in God and religion and there will be an uprising which certain powers would not like." --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Guy, but I got there ahead of you. Dr. K. 04:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
NEE NED ZB 6TNN DEIBEDH SIEFI EBEEE SSIEI ESEE SEEE!! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
There you are. Not difficult to speak Martian, is it? Dr. K. 05:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a cookbook! - Nunh-huh 05:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course! Dr. K. 06:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Klaatu barada nikto - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a melody. - Location (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
One thing I know for sure. After this, we can safely close this noticeboard. Any other fringe theory will look plausible by comparison. Dr. K. 17:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Even more than this gem I came across the other day? (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that this is a parody, but Poe's Law is hard to shake). jps (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol. I know, fringe theories is a pretty vast field. Perhaps, there's still work to be done here after all. Keep up the good work jps. Nice talking to you after such a long time. :) Dr. K. 18:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=791353861"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA