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:




Flatwoods monster

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

The sources look truly terrible. I clicked on one citation called "various newspapers" and found jpg's of sensational headlines (colored bright red) framed by a quote disparaging skepticism and encouraging belief. The rest of the sources seem to be UFO sites and Fortean books. There is a sort of ghettoized criticism section cited to single article by CSICOP. The topic itself is notable, but I'm having a hard time coming up with WP:FRIND sources that might help fix it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources are atrocious, agreed. Article needs a cleanup and notability (based on the sources provided) is questionable. Kleuske (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be notable as a local legend, especially to tourism promoters. And we may see some traffic to the WP article when a trashy new movie comes out in the Spring. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh joy! <<sigh>> Agree that the article seems to be missing better sources.Sgerbic (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the Cabal volunteers could take it on as a project. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre Petit

Jean-Pierre Petit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

French astrophysicist/cosmologist with a section of fringe and conspiracy views that are not explicitly identified as fringe or conspiracy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That's an article that needs some WP:BLOWITUP if I've ever seen one. jps (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep. In addition to the conspiracy stuff, it's also incredibly promotional about obscure and grandiose cosmological speculations, and it suffers pretty badly on the grammatical side. When I say "obscure", I mean that the paper which the article promotes has received a grand total of 13 citations by the incredibly permissive standards of Google Scholar. Only 3 of those 13 are not self-citations, and 2 of those appear to be duplicates. The article even admits, "Despite being peer reviewed, this non-standard cosmological model has not triggered much interest in the scientific community throughout the years". That's not a thing to be proud of! XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Take the BLP to AfD for debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC).
You think so? It looks to me like he slides in above WP:PROF, but I could be wrong. jps (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

discussion at Talk:Pepijn van Erp about notability

Just noticed this. I have no idea if he is or isn't. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Volkskrant, VARA, BNR Radio are Dutch mainstream media having national coverage. I did not check if he is the main subject of such news. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a note, two of the recent contributors to that discussion are SPAs that just started their edit histories by creating those talk page discussions - seems suspicious. Who brings up notability in their very first edit? One of the pair also edited on the talk page of Ruggero Santilli (here: [1]), a fringe figure who has been the target of criticism from Pepijn van Erp. --Krelnik (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Lewkenorian theory of Shakespeare authorship

We have a new SAQ-article, and per COI-statement [2] it´s written by the originator of the idea. Eyes and edits could be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing worthwhile - have boldly redirected to Shakespeare authorship question. Alexbrn (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick. Per the discussion here User_talk:Billdup#Conflict_of_Interest_policy_on_Wikipedia, there may be more articles involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
My edit may not stick, but so far as I can see the "Lewkenorian theory" has no foothold in the world (apart from via Wikipedia!). Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Errm, so does all this stuff:

Hang off William 'Bill' Corbett's self-published book, which Wikipedia is effectively being used to publicise? Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William 'Bill' Corbett (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: The editor in question has, as far as I can tell, acted entirely in good faith; been responsive and constructive when contacted on their talk page; and has attempted to comply with our policies when made aware of them. I would urge that some diplomacy and a soft touch is warranted when dealing with this, irrespective of any normal policy or process requirements (cf. eg. my comment at the referenced AfD). When possible, please consider taking the time to explain (in human language, not in templates) to the editor why and what they can do in whatever process is relevant. Thanks. --Xover (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The editor did get somewhat different signals at [3] and [4]. However, the COI-thing may not have been noticed at the time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

List of unsolved deaths

An SPA keeps adding Dorothy Kilgallen to the List of unsolved deaths, even though their own unsourced edits show that a modern re-examination affirmed the original conclusion that there was "no evidence of murder".[5] [6] [7] Various JFK assassination conspiracy theorists have threied to claim that Kilgallen's death was suspicious, and this appears to be another attempt. Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Such a long article. I also see a tag for split. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Frankly what I want to see is a tag for deletion of a largely indiscriminate list, but I know there's no hope for that. Mangoe (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:IINFO does not seem to work against List Inclusionists. The best we can hope for, I think, is to make the criteria for inclusion a lot more strict. jps (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. I had nominated List of most-followed Twitter accounts and List of most-followed Instagram accounts for deletion. One got deleted and then restored at deletion review, and the other managed only to get reduced to 25 items (down from 100 or so). Some people really like worthless lists. :) In defense of List of unsolved deaths, however, I note that at least each item includes a useful description. The last section about murderers could be removed, but that would hardly affect the overall length. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies For Dummies

https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theories-Secret-Societies-Dummies/dp/0470184086/ --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Robert Vancina‎

Don't know how this got on my watchlist, but I think it needs a fringe veteran's eye. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 22:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Vancina. jps (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson

This page has been discussed here before so I bring to your attention:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (3rd nomination)

This AfD appears to have arisen out of a complaint to BLPN ([8]) that is typical of the demands made previously by her socks and proxies, though the specific issue raised in the nom is WP:BLP1E. Agricolae (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree on the typical. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just in case you missed AfD arguments about Jacob Barnett

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory of the month: NASA is kidnapping children for the mars slave colony

https://www.sfgate.com/weird/article/NASA-No-we-don-t-have-child-slave-colonies-on-11259620.php --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like something that someone with child slave colonies on Mars would say. freshacconci (✉) 05:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
There isn't a single child on mars that hasn't been enslaved by NASA.[Citation Needed] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Wish they would take me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No child left behind. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't believe they bothered to deny it. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't believe the story was printed. Are there more important issues to deal with these days like monkeys on mars(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC))
BTW, if you click on my [Citation Needed] tag, you may be in for a minor surprise... :) --Guy Macon (talk)

Robert David Steele

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

Whaddya think? BLP notable? jps (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, the last Afd on the subject was closed "keep" on the basis of !voters who thought his open source activism made him notable. I'm inclined to think that this may be a situation where the inclinations of Wikipedia editors, many of whom at the time were open sources activists (and many still are), may have been to keep articles about open-source movement articles. Today, this kind of WP:ILIKEIT would be less easy to get away with, IMHO. jps (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert David Steele (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen (yet again)

This time the usual attempts to cast doubt on the circumstances of her death are popping up on List of unsolved deaths. I have removed the entry and there is an ongoing discussion at the article talk page here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles

An RfC relevant to this project has been opened at:

Interested editors are invited to participate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but... how does this relate to fringe theories, which are the focus of this noticeboard? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Reposting here from the RfC for clarification: I've been advised by a WikiProject Firearms member in this discussion that nothing stopping you from posting notifications on the "WP:NPOVN or WP:VP" talk pages, or anywhere else for that matter, to involve as much of the community as possible. I assume various noticeboards qualify as "as much community as possible". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
That's nice, but that's not actually an answer to the question that was asked. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=827142998"
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