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:




Cyclone Waste Heat Engine

This survived AFD two and a half years back on no consensus. It has the classic Energy Catalyzer-style list of every last little sales detail, so you know it's important. One GScholar hit and six GBook hits.

BTW this is likely my last FT/N submission as I haven't been able to make a new article in a long time, and getting bad cats and articles deleted is hardly a way to do business. Mangoe (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this a fringe theory? It looks overly promotional, but that's perhaps a different matter. jps (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
As I read it, this seems to be taking the usual input for a cogeneration plant (waste heat from another process) and turning it into electrical power using a radial piston engine, correct? There's noting inherently fringe-y about that that I can see. ABB, GE, Siemens, and other multi-national companies sell such things every day but they use turbines instead of piston engines. I don't see any claims about free energy or over-unity or other red flags, but maybe I'm missing something? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It appears as if that article could be merged into Cyclone Mark V Engine prokaryotes (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
As the others have noted, this looks like an excruciatingly- and unnecessarily-detailed article about a pre-commercialization(?) device with a much-too-promotional tone, but doesn't actually seem to be fringe. As far as I can tell, there's nothing particularly unusual about it from an obeying-the-laws-of-physics standpoint; it's just a small steam engine.
Like the related article Cyclone Mark V Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a great deal of trimming looks to be required, since – as far as I can tell from our articles, and correct me if I'm mistaken – the company hasn't delivered a single unit of any of its devices to customers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory of the week: NFL football is a psychopathic death trap idol.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/10/31/former-qb-bizarre-conspiracy-theory-nfl/

Key quote:

"And then I started reading about my homies, the Russians, who four years ago did extensive studies on DNA, okay, and what they found was that the double helix DNA, which is in every single cell in our body, is a fractal antenna, and it hears words and sounds. And so the people here in the United States who have been watching football Thursday nights, Sunday mornings, Sunday afternoon, Sunday night, Monday night, for 40 years, their DNA has heard all those violent sounds…well the problem with it is, when you worship a psychopathic death trap idol like the NFL, you become like your idol. The Bible says that you become like your idol that you worship, and they just don’t seem to really care, it has dehumanized them."

-Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Bonus: Five of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Weirdest Conspiracy Theories --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"The Bible says that you become like your idol that you worship"

Where does it say that if you worship a god, you become a god?

And I think you missed something on the source text. After all the mumbo-jumbo on how the NFL dehumanizes American audiences: "He goes on to say that this is what causes the country to get into so many wars."

And there I thought the United States has been fighting wars since the 18th century. Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User creating articles on countless Theosophy books

See the recent article Thought-Forms (book), it may look scholarly from a first glance, but most of the sources are from Theosophical books and it reads like promotion. There is also Occult or Exact Science?, How Theosophy Came to Me, Man: Whence, How and Whither, a Record of Clairvoyant Investigation (all of the sources are Theosophical), From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan, The Occult World, K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. The same pattern here, all created by the same editor. There are others.

Another example, The Esoteric Character of the Gospels, Philosophers and Philosophicules etc. Basically if you strip these articles down there would be only a handful of reliable neutral sources that discuss these books. The user making these articles SERGEJ2011 only edits in relation to Theosophy, I suspect this user is associated or works for the Theosophical Society Adyar. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look yet, but are these book reviews of probably non-notable books? or discussions of probably non-notable ideas from within these books? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"are these book reviews of probably non-notable books"

Book reviews? I think you did not notice the years of publications in some of these books. One dates to 1901, another to 1886, etc. They are over a century old. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There have been quite a few theosophy related periodicals over the years. If they have done book reviews (and I don't know anything there one way or another) and if reviews in such publications are sufficient to establish notability (I don't know anything there either) then there probably isn't much we can do about the articles existing, although we might tell others to look in outside sources for views outside the belief system in question.
Personally, I would love to see a lot more articles on the essential books of most major belief systems, as such separate articles can go into greater depth about the important but sometimes minor points of doctrine. They might however be really problematic if those points of doctrine relate specifically to theories which were them or are now counted as fringey. I'm not sure exactly where in such cases the mainstream refutation material should be placed. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The same user is creating more and more Theosophical articles that contain little to no criticisms and mostly source to Theosophy sources. Here is his latest Christianity and Theosophy. Yet this user gets away with it, no other users or moderators are actually checking what he is writing. There is a serious NPOV issue here but I am not going to go on about it. Nobody seems to care here. Just let the guy create 1 million fringe Theosophy articles then. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
His articles creations like this: The Esoteric Character of the Gospels are not notable. What academics have reviewed this publication? The entire article is sourced to obscure Theosophy publications, some of which cannot be checked so we have no idea if what he has written is accurate or not. He does the same on every article he creates, yet nobody seems to have picked up on this apart from me. I thought new article creations are supposed to be checked? This is not a good thing. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Lol this user is using this Theosophy wiki as a valid source [1] and quoting from it in several of his articles. I am amazed nobody has picked up on this. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

His recent article Christianity and Theosophy cites:

Ellwood R. S. (16 August 2011). "Bailey, Alice Ann Latrobe Bateman". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017. ———— (November 2000). "Christian Ritual in Theosophical Perspective". Quest. Theosophical Society in America. 88 (6): 225–227. Retrieved 26 October 2017. ———— (7 April 2012). "Christianity, Theosophical Approaches to". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017. ———— (2012-03-15). "Leadbeater, Charles Webster". Theosopedia. Manila: Theosophical Publishing House. Retrieved 19 October 2017.

The "Theosopedia" is not a reliable source. It is a public wiki used by Theosophists that contains little to no reliable sources. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

SERGEJ2011 has been adding the Theosopedia reference to a number of articles, [2]. They should all be removed. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Chicken or the egg

I don't really want to get sanctioned over edit warring here, so please see Chicken or the egg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

User:D1gggg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been adding a lot of questionable stuff, with poor English and weird layout. He's a fairly new editor and has been extremely active lately, also apparently trying to scrub any links to this article from anywhere else on Wikipedia. I don't know if this is the best place to bring this up (ANI seems like overkill), but I'm not sure wheat else to do here. I really don't have the time or patience to chase down everything that he's been doing, so any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to look at IMO. User unable to explain removed inline references:
User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis#Chicken_or_the_egg
according to WP:BURDEN
I asked assistance with layout at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#I_need_assistance_with_layout but nobody really cares
And it is not clear what is "bad layout" in 1 or 2 D1gggg (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is really not very good. The sourcing was particularly atrocious and there are a lot of asserted statements that have no citations. I removed a lot of text cited to what is essentially a self-published essay and the dictionary. One entire section was cited only to the bible. Do we actually need such an article? Is there a possible redirect? jps (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Section with bible is not my creation
Unfortunately we don't have a better sourced article
Literal answers to "egg or chicken" are as popular as "lemon battery"
By no means they could be "Fringe theories" or speculative.
All of my edits support mainstream view: "egg was first".
This discussion should be elsewhere. D1gggg (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I think an article on the expression as it relates to the first cause question is appropriate and would not favor conversion to a redirect, but I am less enthused about the undue weight currently given to answering the question in its literal sense given that most uses of the expression are rhetorical. Anyhow, though the existing article is not a good one, I agree that it is not a fringe issue. Agricolae (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The topic of the first cause question seems to me to maybe be a reasonable subject for an article on that philosophical question. This article is not however that article. Unfortunately, from a quick search of the first ten Google returns for that phrase, I see a lot of stuff for the cosmological argument but nothing on the question in other contexts, so I'm not at all sure what the best title for it might be. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:KT Astrologer

Astrologer BLP with interesting, primary sourced claims. —PaleoNeonate – 08:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I've listed it on MfD. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC).
And the MfD has now drawn a number of interesting socks (all blocked). Bishonen | talk 22:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC).
There was a lot of action there. Face-smile.svg Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In case you were unaware of it

Finland does not exist. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A Finnish friend lately admitted to me that he actually lived in a basement in my Canadian city (for real, but as a joke). —PaleoNeonate – 04:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't all that long ago that much of Finland didn't exist. But I think it exists now. Unless my friend Markku has been lying. You just never know for sure about people. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Joseph and Aseneth's largest section is a fringe view

A vast chunk of it is devoted to Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson's fringe book The Lost Gospel. Most of it, although now revised, was added here by AncientScrolls100 (talk · contribs) who has been pushing these sources into various articles. The article on their book looks as though it needs work, and AncientScrolls100 has clearly used Barrie Wilson's home page as a source for review snippets[3] at Wilson's BLP. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks as though The Lost Gospel is rotting again and is having trouble saying that it's bosh. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Scholarly article labelled FRINGE

An editor has labelled a 2016 journal article by scholar Mahesh Shankar as FRINGE. The full citation here:

  • Shankar, Mahesh (2016), "Nehru's legacy in Kashmir: Why a plebiscite never happened", India Review, 15 (1): 1–21, doi:10.1080/14736489.2016.1129926, (Subscription required (help)) 

The abstract says:

As the dispute over Kashmir broke out in 1947, a plebiscite of the people of the state offered a mutually acceptable and ostensibly fair path out of the imbroglio. Critics have often laid the blame on Nehru, and the territory’s salience to India, for why a plebiscite was never held. Based on primary documentation, this article makes the case that it was not a lack of commitment to the formula, but rather Nehru’s deeply held strategic and reputational fears that motivated, first, the setting of what Delhi saw as firm but fair pre-conditions, and after the conclusion of the US-Pakistan military pact in 1954, the complete rejection of the plebiscite option.

According to the editor, the fact the article goes against the grain and disagrees with the majority of sources (but not all) that were published earlier makes it FRINGE. What is your view? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears you could put aside FRINGE and just look at due and weight. Shankar doesn't seem to be a very notable scholar, being barely cited. Given that, I'd say the editor cutting down the article text to a shorter attributed couple sentences is the right call. Capeo (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment For a reasonable background of why the source is actually deemed inadequate, observers may want to read the arguments put forth by users here, here and here. Mar4d (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello, this is a contentious topic area and as such requires high level tertiary and authoritative sources vetted for neutrality and authoritativeness like Schofield's book,[1][2] but Kautilya3 dismisses it on flimsy pretext. Kautilya3's strategy is to examine the sources of the sources and cast aspersions on the motives of scholars and writers (as he has done against 'Western' scholars [4]) who he does not agree with under some pretext or the other (this is where the WP:OR comes in and because I have no interest or expertise in the motivations and experiences of scholars rather my job as a neutral editor is to summarise the sources according to their weight it becomes difficult for me to edit with synch unreason ability) and then push and base entire sections of articles on the views and analysis of his favourite scholar, who in this case is the author of a self-admitted revisionist account.
  • Some relevant extracts from the Shankar article,
  • Scholars have similarly pointed to Nehru’s occasional expression of skepticism about the wisdom and practicality of holding a plebiscite
  • Most prominent accounts of the Kashmir dispute attribute Nehru’s role in the failure to achieve peace to the immense nationalist, strategic, and even emotional value India’s first prime minister attached to the territory
  • I believe it is these scholars and 'most important accounts' which need more weight on the article.
  • We on Wikipedia are bound per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE to merely state scholarly opinions and summarise them according to their prominence in the field. Giving a self admitted minority view/analysis more space than necessary and making it seem in the article as the correct view is just POV pushing.
  • Kautilya3 then claims that a peer reviewed journal article with 126 citations can't be called WP:FRINGE. He also calls it 'new research'. These line of arguments are red herrings. All Wikipedia labels as FRINGE is an idea which significantly departs from the mainstream view in the field, no matter who the author and publisher is. KA$HMIR (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
KA$HMIR, with all due respect, this is Fringe theory noticeboard. It is not the place to argue the whole Kashmir conflict or to complain about editors. If you have a case to make as to why this source should be considered WP:FRINGE, please make it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment--Mahesh is a barely-cited scholar and the culling was the right call w.r.t to WP:WEIGHT.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 07:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not getting how this source can be considered fringe if his writings have been published in reliable sources and not contradicted by most of other experts of the field? Capitals00 (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Read the above. Mar4d (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
To Kautilya3: you need to understand WP:FRINGE. In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."

It is visible to all readers that Shankar is propounding an idea which contradicts the mainstream views in this topic. He admits it himself

"It particularly addresses critics’ claims—in Pakistan and in the scholarly community—that the failure of the plebiscite option owed itself solely to Nehru’s intransigence"

Scholars have similarly pointed to Nehru’s occasional expression of skepticism about the wisdom and practicality of holding a plebiscite

"Most prominent accounts" of the Kashmir dispute attribute Nehru’s role in the failure to achieve peace to the immense nationalist, strategic, and even emotional value India’s first prime minister attached to the territory.[3]

Being in a 'scholarly' source is irrelevant to the fact that it is an idea without wider acceptance in the scholarly community, this is explicitly admitted by the 'scholar' who authored this theory. This source is a revisionist account and revisionist accounts not accepted by the wider scholarly community are fringe regardless of whether they're published in peer-reviewed journal articles or not. It is a matter of common sense that this Shankar source is not anything but fringe.-- NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Matthias Schmidt. “Mountain Research and Development.” Mountain Research and Development, vol. 32, no. 1, 2012, pp. 101–102.
  2. ^ Tor H Ase, Kashmir in Conflict. India, Pakistan and the Unfinished War Tor H. Aase International Mountain Society and United Nations University 20(3):292-292.
  3. ^ Shankar, Nehru's Legacy in Kashmir 2016, pp. 16.

Aircosmo Theory

"A model consistent with Aircosmic Theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomenon such as extra-sensory perception (ESP)". —PaleoNeonate – 22:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Mirko Beljanski

This looks incredibly fishy to me. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Edited this a few years ago: I'd suggest I left it in a state which is rather more neutral than what we've got now.[5]. Key point now downplayed is that Beljanski's treatments were ineffective. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Relatedly: a blog post by his son about Wikipedia's article. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
^^^ he means daughter ^^^ -Roxy the dog. barcus 16:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
O yes, sorry. They claim Beljanski was never found guilty, and this was removed from the article by an IP shortly after this blog appeared. But it was pretty well sourced that he was. Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Well he certainly appears to have been "sentenced" in 1994, but everything I can find (easily) is in french, and the 'foundation' seems to be handy with the whitewash. The french versions of the story are a lot more complicated than anything I can find in english, and unfortunately the french is way above my ability. -Roxy the dog. barcus 18:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at the court documents it appears he was found guilty of malpractice in 1994, but then the investigation continued for ages and so an award was made to his widow later. Following more POV-editing I have reverted and neutralized the article; probably needs watchful eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Flat Earth conference held in Cary

"A lot of people, including celebrities like NBA player Kyrie Irving and Tila Tequila, have publicly said in the past that they think our planet is as flat, and attendees at a conference held this week in Cary apparently agree. The Flat Earth International Conference put on a sold-out a meeting Nov. 9-10 at the Embassy Suites in Cary.

According to the group's website, registration fees to attend the conference ranged from $27 (for online streaming) all the way up to $249 for a VIP package. Several attendees apparently drove campers to the event and parked them in the hotel parking lot while the conference was underway.

Convention organizers paid for a billboard advertisement that was erected in late October along Route 401.

The group of people who believe the Earth is flat has gained momentum in recent years and been the subject of social media feuds and several national news reports.

The convention in Cary was set to feature 14 speakers and include exhibitions and panel discussions about topics that included: NASA and other space lies; Flat Earth with the scientific method; and waking up to mainstream science lies."

http://www.wral.com/flat-earth-conference-held-in-cary-/17105359/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talkcontribs) 12:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on use of Frank Collin aka Frank Joseph as a source

This is about using his books on military history as a source. That's not fringe but he definitely is, so I think the RSN discussion is relevant to editors here. I've raised this at WP:RSN#Are books by an ex-Nazi writer of fringe books on Atlantis, etc RS for military history? Doug Weller talk 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Frank Collin as a source? He is a former Neo-Nazi, who was kicked out from a Neo-Nazi party due to a conviction for molesting children. He has since turned into a New Age writer, whose main claim to fame is supporting the historicity of Atlantis and Lemuria. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

IP and predatory journals

An IP, 40.134.67.50 (talk), has been going around to articles removing mentions related to Beall's list. More eyes would be helpful on the articles they've been editing such as Stephanie Seneff, Oncotarget, etc. Especially since there's been a history of socking and disruptive editors on the subject, the IP citing wikilinks like a somewhat experienced editor getting into potential WP:DUCK territory, but I'm not familiar enough with recent ongoings in the topic area to check it out further very quickly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A message from Bastyr University

This was just posted at Talk:Bastyr University. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor had already tried some whitewashing a while ago. No WP:COI declaration has been made. Alexbrn (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The Boss has tied me up in the backyard. Let me have my ipad though. Ugh, I can't get loose. -Roxy the dog. barcus 00:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that the July dates that the account were active coincide rather nicely with this interesting story. Things that make you go, "hmm." jps (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Boss doesn't know I slipped my lead. -Roxy the dog. barcus 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I put a list of new sources that can be incorporated into the article, and help would be appreciated. Delta13C (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Magicians of the Gods

Redirect just changed into an article. Quite a few problems including poor sources and stating disputed event as fact. No time now to fix. Doug Weller talk 06:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are there any new claims in the book? It supports the controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which concerns comet impacts and an extinction event at 12,900 BP. The hypothesis is disputed because it seems to contradict a number of archaeological and palaeontological data. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think an WP:AfD is in order as a failure of WP:BK. But someone should check to see if anyone has bothered to write a review beyond the single rather wet blanket one offered in the Washington Times. jps (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I see on the net discussions of the book by Kirkus Reviews, The Huffington Post, and the Telegraph of the UK. Those articles, and others, may well be enough to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Mind control

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mind Control --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Serpent Mound

Just a heads up, I removed 2 paragraphs from the article Serpent Mound sourced to fringe author Ross Hamilton. He's an Atlantis/giant nephilim/stars of Draco enthusiast who sometimes does lectures with notorious fringer Graham Hancock. Also, there is currently a minor kerfuffle surrounding the site concerning the Ohio Historical Society and some new age groups no longer being permitted to hold events at the site. I do not know if anyone will show to "set the record straight" here, but some extra eyes on the article for awhile might not be a bad idea. Cheers. Heiro 22:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

GMO Conspiracy Theories!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMO conspiracy theories.

Comment please!

jps (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

And now!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsanto public relations activities.

jps (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Mass edits being done by an IP who seems to be dominating this article. He inserted a sentence which claimed that some of the arguments used by mythicists are accepted by mainstream academia and linked to two blogs. 139.99.130.220 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:16, 16 November 2017 - 74.138.106.1 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Mental Potentials Create Many Realities or Many Worlds

Currently at MfD. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel us creating the reality that this tract does not exist. Mangoe (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, as a first step, it would help if the draft established the book’s actual existence, so we know this isn’t a hoax. I note that the draft does not contain ANY sources or links. At a minimum, we need a citation pointing us to where we could find it. Hell, the draft does not even mention who wrote the book (and you would expect that to be one of the first things to be mentioned) Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone named Kevin Luckerson apparently wrote it and published it to Createspace. WP:SELFPUB. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard mentioned in media

"An internal Wikipedia forum meant to combat conspiracy theories" has to be this place. Interesting article, too: A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup, it's this place. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
These one-time editors’ lack of experience became clear when they began voting in favor of keeping the article on Wikipedia – a practice not employed in the English version of Wikipedia since 2016, when editors voted to exchange the way articles are deleted for a process of consensus-based decision through discussion. Mmm? The vote-and-discussion hybrid method of handling issues has been ongoing for a while. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Few articles in the popular press reflect an accurate understanding of how Wikipedia works. As these things go, the article was better than many I've seen. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
And then point if this is?Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, having looked at the article in question, which seems to me to be more about the man than the deletion of his article, I think that article, along with one or two others I've seen that are primarily biographical, is probably enough to get his article recreated and probably kept now. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I can't help but wonder whether this is a case of English-speaking bias. There might be many reliable sources in German that may have established his notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, yes I can see this, but I find it odd that this occurred not because of a lack of notability, but due to his sudden change of beleife, which is not what Fringe should be about.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes... we have many articles on proponents of fringe theories (indeed most are notable BECAUSE of their fringe advocacy) ... what matters isn’t what this guy believes, but whether independent sources have discussed him (beyond passing mentions). He sure seems like the sort of person who would likely to have enough sources that discuss him to pass GNG... both for his academic work and for his advocacy. So we should definitely look to see whether there are any German sources, and re-examine the English ones. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Ya know, after receiving some complaints on my talk page I did a source search and found some German sources. All of them either by the subject or passing mentions, with the focus being on his work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked at this fellow's Google Scholar profile and at least on that basis his wiki-notability with respect to WP:PROF is at best borderline. We have lots of bios on borderline or non-notable academics that slide through under the radar because no one is really looking. What seems to have happened here is that people started looking. My interpretation is that his article wasn't deleted because he is a creationist (we have lots of articles on creationists), but because his creationism brought the scrutiny that all BLPs should have but too often don't. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Next question... has he become notable BECAUSE he supports intelligent design? Are there sources (other than the one that inspired this thread) that highlight his advocacy (for example, media sources that quote him when discussing ID, or refer to him as being a prominent advocate of ID). Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
We're at a point where he may be reaching levels of WP:BIO famous for having his Wikipedia page removed. SMH. jps (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Famous for having been on WP. It could happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I think Josh has a good point in indicating that we don't want to enable individuals to game the system and establish notability based on being found non-notable here. Having said that, I have no clue at all as to how to work to make sure it doesn't happen again. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It would require a change in policy. My guess is the community would not be okay with it. jps (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Re "we don't want to enable individuals to game the system and establish notability based on being found non-notable here", so my plan to become part of a juicy scandal involving weasels and politicians (but I repeat myself...) in order to get my own Wikipedia page is off? :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry. The evil wikipedian cabal may erase your English Wikipedia page, but you can still keep your German, Italian, and Danish pages. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Remember that the article subject can’t “game the system” on his own... we still need sources to comment on the subject. A person can not become notable simply by having his article deleted from Wikipedia... however a person could become notable by having reliable sources NOTE that his article got deleted. It’s the coverage in sources that establishes Notability, not the deletion itself. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but if a topic or person might have a friend of some sort in the independent media, getting that to happen might not be that hard, particularly if what is involved is a book or writer or topic that has some sort of related periodical. I'm thinking of some non-notable religious groups and writers who would love to have the apparent legitimacy some think is conferred by having an article here. So, for instance, one source I know says there are about 20,000 distinct Christian groups or denominations out there, counting all the independent churches separately, including the internet churches. This sort of thing might work for a lot of them. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Highly unlikely... and if proven we can claim that the source is not “independent”. The fact is, people become WP:Notable for all sorts of silly things. All it takes for you to be Notable is for sources to take note of you. So, someone CAN become notable for something that occurs on Wikipedia... if sources take note of it. It won’t happen often... but it can happen. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy-theory addled user attempting to POV push to add hoax information to articles via word-salad edits

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OP is a block-evading, forum-shopping, harassing editor. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:19, 21 November 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.

For the most egregious example, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier&diff=809663502&oldid=809659332

"We now know that Fusion GPS executives are being uncooperative with the investigation and have pleaded the 5th; the Clinton campaign funded part of the Steele dossier, there was Russian interference in the 2016 election favoring Clinton, and the FBI also funded part of that dossier."

User needs a block.209.140.43.55 (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Then report them on the correct forum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Isn't this the conspiracy theory noticeboard?209.140.43.55 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the user is not a conspiracy theory, you need to take it to ani if you think a user needs blocking.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 21 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=811402762"
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