Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

This is one of these edits that involved WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, etc and I never know where to mention them as I don't like going to 2 boards for one edit. But as it mainly involves Answers in Genesis, I'm coming here/ I've been trying to explain to 66.190.249.59 (talk · contribs) about our policies but they still don't get it.

"In March 2015, Americans United filed a motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed in the state of Kentucky. Americans United is representing, four Kentucky taxpayers, two of whom are Baptist ministers.<ref>http://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/29956-baptist-ministers-oppose-tax-break-for-ark-park</ref> In the lawsuit,<ref>https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/ark/lawsuit-document.pdf</ref> Ark Encounter LLC,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis#Ark_Encounter</ref> the developer of a tourist attraction featuring a life size model of Noah's Ark, is requesting the state of Kentucky approve its application for a tourism incentive program that would offset some of its development costs by deferring sales taxes the theme park itself will generate through its ticket sales. Kentucky governor Steve Beshear also filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Last year a board within the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet that reviews such applications gave preliminary approval of an application seeking $18 million in tax rebates for the $73 million development. But in December Bob Stewart, secretary of the state Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet, rejected the application on final review saying the applicant changed its position on hiring practices and now intended to discriminate in hiring based on religion.<ref>http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/beshear-asks-dismissal-ark-case/70571974/</ref> In their motion Beshear and Stewart said, "Providing the public funding sought for religious purposes ...would constitute an unlawful establishment of religion under the U.S. and Kentucky constitutions." According to its complaint, Ark Encounter LLC, suggests the subject position advertised was not for an employee of Ark Encounter LLC but for a position at Answers in Genesis that is lawfully able to select employees based upon religious beliefs since it is a religious ministry."

The WP:UNDUE bit is because I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this lawsuit which does mention the subject of the article in the media besides the Baptist website. As for sources, we have the Baptist site (mentioning AU & the lawsuit), the Courier-Journal (mentioning the lawsuit but not AU), our Answers in Genesis article which should probably be a wikilink to the Ark Encounter, and a pdf on Answers in Genesis website (and note that even a court document would almost certainly fail WP:RS as a primary source. I don't want the IP to think I'm making this all up or being unfair (they already think I'm following them around, which of course is in a sense true, I found a problem at another article the IP edited and after fixing that looked at other edits). I'll notify the IP now.

And if anyone thinks this should be at another NB, let me know and I'll move it. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I mean this NB is for fringe theories of different fields, and the only thing fringe about this debacle is that AIG supports creationism. But that doesn't seem to be the problem here. What exactly is your stance, though? This section should be removed per WP:UNDUE? I've heard of this exchange/lawsuit elsewhere outside of wiki, I'm pretty sure it does have coverage. Let's see if I can find any...Yep! Here are some WP:RSes^[1][2][3][4] that cover the passage above, maybe it should be cleaned up, made coherent, etc., but it definitely is WP:Notable, in my opinion.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this. The fringe element is the ARK bit, which is all the editor is interested in - so far as I can see, the AU itself is almost irrelevant to the IP's edits, and I see you've removed a quote that again had nothing to do with AU. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Wickstrom - the sources are entirely promotional and do not point out the rather well-known fact that Narconon is a scam. The article needs to go, or be drastically revised to reflect the reality-based view of the Scientology cult's abusive drug rehab fraud. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Uncited biography of a living person who is a UFOlogist and grandson of the inventor of the Lear jet. Does coverage in reliable secondary sources exist or is this one for Afd? - Location (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ironically the first external link has some of the best info (though it's a bit unclear whether it qualifies as an RS) but there are plenty of book hits too. Obviously the current version is UFOlogist trash. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Mangoe, I redirected to the applicable section in the father's biography. - Location (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Scientific_papers_listing

Please note that Nigelj has added Sheldrake's reported list of scientific papers to the article as a citation to our first identifier of Rupert Sheldrake as a "scientist". I'm concerned that this list includes many papers which are not strictly scientific. It would be great to get some outside opinions on the matter.

jps (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In my understanding this is a vexed question not a simple factual matter, so adducing a bunch of primary sources to call Sheldrake—in Wikipedia's voice—a "scientist" would violate WP:NOR, no? Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sheldrake has credentials as a botanist, doesn't he? Considering the extremely nebulous meaning of "scientist," wouldn't inclusion of that word be both, well, less-than-productive and redundant? John Carter (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

He is a former scientist. These days he's a professional crank. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, sure, but we obviously can't say that in the first sentence of the article. The question is, "What do we say?" There are competing positions here. One position is credentialism. It is undeniable that Sheldrake has been trained at first-rate institutions and has participated in process science that has been if perhaps not notable then at least what everyone agrees is a normal part of a scientific career. That was decades ago. Now, Sheldrake publishes ideas strictly outside of that framework. That doesn't mean he loses his membership card in the "I am a scientist!" club, but it certainly means that we should think about how this presentation is done. I tried putting in "biologist by training" as a way of explaining this situation, but that was rejected as being somehow demeaning to Sheldrake's background. So we're stuck with this kind of special pleading, but I'm not sure what way out of it there is. We need to be able to get across to the reader that here is a guy who has been trained and has worked professionally as a scientist but who currently works in way that most scientists would describe as "pseudoscientific". That's the game. How Wikipedia does this is not something I've figured out and it certainly isn't being helped by a talkpage that seems to have a number of people who aren't able to see that this actually is the game. jps (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC is always an option. And I think maybe something like "RS is a trained biologist who is perhaps most notable for advancing opinions outside of his field of training which have been rejected by the scientific community"? Wordy, yeah, but it conveys most of the information, I think. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Or simply don't mention it, as was the case for a long time. The current version is fine, it complies with all relevant policies. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• He is a researcher and a former biologist, nothing more. -A1candidate 18:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't belittle him. He is a very charismatic crank, too. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If so, why can't we state that in our article? Because he isn't. -A1candidate 00:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't state it because we are an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid. That doesn't mean that the statement is false, just that there are better ways to say it (which we do in the article). jps (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks‎. I request input. QuackGuru (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I made an improvement in spelling during my initial reading. It has an interesting and reasonably accurate description of the prevailing atmosphere at fringe articles under attack from advocates. Written in the same style as "The Litmus Paper," recently deleted and sadly missed, this essay makes accurate assessments and reasonable PAG based suggestions to editors. Well done. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 08:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I gather from the tagging and from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks that there's going to be a concerted effort to get this nuked. Mangoe (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted as it should have been. Plagiarism of another editor's work is insufferable especially when that work is still under discussion for further improvement. Atsme☯^Consult 23:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Since I made comments I thought just add that deleted works for me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Needs more eyes. I've just reverted some edits by an editor who doesn't understand that NPOV doesn't mean we take a neutral stance. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Ongoing edit war to insert "Classical physics is a false theory of the world" [1] into the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

May be just a non-optimal framing of the topic in the lead, and not a fringe issue. Now on Talk. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again, an IP pushing Manuel Rosa, informing our readers that Rosa has made a convincing case. I've reverted once but it's back. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am seeking a second opinion in Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#On removal of information contained in FBI report. One editor wishes to include material (i.e. that LBJ believed the CIA was involved in assassinating JFK) in the main conspiracy article, but that same material is already in the appropriate sub-article (i.e. CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory). On top of that, the material he wishes to include is not accurately summarized nor is it properly attributed. Thanks! - Location (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are researching complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and you are not hated by the CAM world, you're not doing it right.

Unbiased: The Truth about the Healing Arts on Wikipedia

This constitutes evidence that we are, in fact, doing it right. Well done. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Some commentary from Orac here. Incidentally, whatever happened to Deepak Chopra's kind-of-similar "ISHAR" Project I wonder? Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Beware; alexbrn's link triggers kaspersky to prompt this alarm. Logos (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

False reports like that don't tend to last too long. Some people really don't like it when you call them out :) jps (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

ISHAR has been happening: [2]. There was a little mixup when the first person in charge was fired and replaced by a different Wikipedian. Judicious googling will clue you in on the story. jps (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is not much different from a religious cult that misinterprets their perceived persecution as some form of validation of their beliefs (e.g. "If the Devil does not hate you, it means you're not a true follower"). For the record, Ernst personally formulated his law as follows: "If a scientist investigating alternative medicine is much liked by the majority of enthusiasts in this field, the scientist is not doing his/her job properly" [3]. This is totally different from how the OP states it and his misinterpretation of Ernst's "law" is yet another reason why this particular brand of fake Internet skepticism and SBM advocacy, when seriously considered, is so dangerous to mainstream science and medicine. -A1candidate 17:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What is "SBM advocacy"? That one is new to me. The Traveling Boris (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

SBM = science-based medicine. jps (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is very different, because science changes according to developing evidence, whereas cults like homeopathy cannot, because they reject all evidence that is not consistent with their doctrines (in the case of homeopathy this includes most of physics, all of human biochemistry, physiology and anatomy, and pretty much everything we've learned as a species since 1790). Wikipedia does a remarkably good job of stating the facts, neutrally, by reference to the best available evidence. That means there is some material I dislike because I personally think that acupuncture and chiropractic are meretricious quackery that exploits the gullible, and Wikipedia is much more moderate, and there are some articles I like very much, including the one on "the one quackery to rule them all", homeopathy. The authors of the Kickstarter project are lunatic charlatans. Their opposition validates us. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The more you continue to seek validity in their opposition, the more it serves to prove my point - that the Internet skeptic's movement resembles a religious cult that misinterprets perceived persecution or opposition as some form of validation of their beliefs. Just like how a Jehovah's Witness is taught from a young age that conflict with the others is inevitable and subsequently misinterprets that as evidence for the validity of the Watch Tower society's doctrines. Feel free to oppose the Kickstarter project, but please don't view their opposition as evidence for the validity of your beliefs, if skepticism is still desirable here. -A1candidate 00:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The invalidity of the evidentiary basis of alternative medicine is definitional. No one (not even the proponents) argue that this isn't the case. The best that they can do is say that there is a "growing" number of supporters or "more and more studies". (I suppose they don't see the irony in that claim since the number of scientists and the number of studies that are about any topic are necessarily a cumulative distribution functions and so it is impossible for them to decrease in amount.) The point that is relevant is that people who support ideas which lack evidentiary basis will oppose evidentiary basis. It's not to say that you are necessarily doing something right, but if the anti-empirical believers were enthusiastic in their support of a project, it probably is not an empirically-based project. jps (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't seek validity in their opposition, I merely mock it. The thing about science is that it goes on being true whether you believe it or not. Homeopathy, especially, is based purely on faith. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand how a book that will be essentially self-published will expose bias in en.wikipedia's coverage of alternative health practices and companies? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It will be cited as proof that we are evil big pharma shills. And any minute now they will come up with the all-important missing evidence showing how big pharma controls the tens of millions of doctors, scientists, academics, health regulators, charity workers, aid workers, lay skeptics and so on, with suhc an iron fist that nobody has ever spoken a word. A conspiracy that tight MUST be evil. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

and on that day, the day the evidence of all that schilling is published, that's the day I'll get my big pharma cheque. It should be huuuuuuge by then. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 22:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple editors are telling me my sources are fringe. Walasma dynasty were Argobba. I found several sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (page 14 footnotes). Are these fringe? Zekenyan (talk)

I have already warned you of WP:FORUMSHOPPING so why are you continuing? For those interested this is the fourth one, for the rest: at admin SilkTork's Talk Page, at the No original research/Noticeboard, and an AI report. Anyways, you may have sources "supporting" your statements but their all based off the fringe work of Braukamper. Numerous other users have already explained this to but it's clear that you simply WP:DONTLIKEIT. AcidSnow (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, its not forumshopping im trying to figure out if its fringe as you say. Zekenyan (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to be rude here and I'll try to make it clear to you why it's "fringe". It's because it has no evidence behind it. There are no medieval or otherwise historical records that even allude to the Walashma having been Argobbas, the historical records simply share genealogies such as the Aqeel Ibn Abi Talib genealogy that traces back to him via Isma'il Al-Jaberti (Somali Darod clan ancestor) & the Hasani genealogy (son of Ali ibn Abi Talib) and this one traced to Hasan via Yusuf bin Ahmad Al-Kawneyn (that Somali saintly figure) as Harari records show. For one, Argobbas have nothing to do with either of those genealogies and the sources you keep citing who often use Braukamper's work (from what I've noticed) have no evidence behind their assertions, they literally just go off into conjecture. The actual concrete historical evidence on these guys only shares Arabian genealogies tied to these Somali patriarchal and saintly figures who may have been Arabs but are essentially (such as in the case of Isma'il Al-Jaberti/ his son) "mythical ancestors/ founders of clans". That's it.

There is not one real historical record or piece of evidence (archaeological or otherwise) that implies they were Argobbas, all sources that claim they were are going off of guess work. Braukamper for one at times concedes that he has little proof for what he's saying like when he made wild statements about whom the Harla might have been, although I slightly agree with him that they may have been Ethio-Semitic (the Harla) and maybe ancestral to Hararis but again; he doesn't go off of archaeological, historical record based or any form of real evidence; he just comes up with theories and then even acknowledges that he has no evidence-> are these the sources you wish to cite? Most if not all base their ideas on his "work". There is no evidence of a concrete nature that they were Argobba, it's all just authors who seem to be guessing at best (poorly as well) or basing their guesses on another man who guessed from what I and others can tell (Braukamper). Just leave the page as is and let this go... Hasn't it been nearly half a month? I thought you'd finally moved on or something... Awale-Abdi (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"There is not one real historical record or piece of evidence (archaeological or otherwise) that implies they were Argobbas, all sources that claim they were are going off of guess work." - Indeed, Awale-Abdi. The Futuh al-Habash (Conquest of Abyssinia) -- a medieval treatise penned by Shihab ad-Din, the personal chronicler of Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi of the Adal Sultanate -- indicates instead that most of Adalite forces during the conquest comprised various other groups; notably Somali, Afar and Harla (who indeed may have been ancestral to the Harari). Middayexpress (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the majority of the Ifat & the Adal's soldiers were Somalis joined by Afars & Harlas. In fact the first mention of the word "Somali" in history was in a hymn composed at the behest of Emperor Yeshaq I upon his defeating a Walashma/ Ifat Sultan, it was used to describe the Ifat troops. Before this Somalis were mostly just referred to as "Barbara" (or some such variant of the word) if anything close to an "ethnic term" was ever utilized to describe them. [-] [-] Awale-Abdi (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your still rude but nonetheless, Your telling me that it miraculously appeared on several academic sources without any evidence? If its fringe what is the current establishment? Bring forth your sources without oirignal research and synthesis Zekenyan (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Shag Harbour UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We should decide whether this particular incident was notable enough. It was investigated by a number of different groups back in the 60s when such investigations were a little more common than they are today. Nothing came of it, though, and it isn't particularly prominent a sighting as far as I can tell.

jps (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I get four GNews hits.[9] The first one conveys some notability, the second is the same report, the third is just a blur, and the fourth one calls it "one of the most documented potential UFO sightings in history"... but the author was a local newspaper reporter. Maybe just enough for a stand-alone, but I don't care to put the work into it. - Location (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:UFO and Meteor Shower over High Desert.jpg has been renamed File:Evening sky over High Desert California.jpg. jps (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm stepping back from an edit war over this one. Am I right in saying that it needs to have a reliable source calling it a UFO, before putting it in articles and calling it a UFO? Geogene (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Pocketthis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ...is the uploader, and has been trying to insert it into a number of articles. We need a RS for Wikipedia to call it "unknown" or "a UFO" or "unidentified". The claim of an uploader isn't sufficient. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The claim that this is a UFO is WP:OR plain and simple. And as Geogene has pointed out on User talk:Pocketthis, the 'meteor shower' is nothing but star trails. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The long streak is consistent with time lapse photographs of airplanes. A UFO, of course, would have made a sudden 90 degree turn. - Location (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd better take another look at the turn that object makes. "A UFO, of course, would have made a sudden 90 degree turn". Do you fly UFOs?? This is too funny to even argue with. You all know nothing about what you all have such strong opinions about. Even funnier is the fact that it DOES make a 90 degree turn. Pocketthis (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It was a joke. As jps pointed out below, it's likely due to camera shake as lights on the ground make a similar "2" shaped bend. - Location (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Because something is unidentified, doesn't mean it's from an alien race. It's just an unknown object. That is what a UFO is. If you magnify that object in the top left corner of the photo, you can see that it is going fast, slows down, and ejects something. I have no idea what it is. No one that I have sent the photo to can identify the object either. It has been established by many fellow pilots I have sent it to, that it isn't a Jet, airplane, balloon, or anything that can be explained to date. That is what a UFO is.....thus UFO. As far as the edit war is concerned, the editor whom I reverted has proven nothing, and his/her best explanation is: "looks like a plane to me". That is almost funny, but it's more sad than funny. My suggestion is that it stays up until someone with comes up with a rational scientific explanation that convinces all involved that he is correct in his opinion. Also, to pull that photo from the Landers. California article is nonsense no matter what the explanation. It is a photo of Landers at night. The only one of its kind that I know of, other than the hundreds I have in my files not posted here. ThanksPocketthis (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The 'rational scientific explanation' is that you are mistaken, that the 'meteors' are stars, and that the streak in the sky going left to right is an aircraft. Though there are of course other possible explanations - as the image metadata might possibly suggest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to using it in the Landers article as long as the caption doesn't mention UFO or any variant of unidentified/unknown flying object. It's true that it doesn't mean aliens...but the 'extraterrestrial hypothesis' is so prevalent in popular culture that to most people, UFO does mean 'aliens'. For what it's worth, I think the last point of that bright trail is odd (zoom in), but not remarkably so. The key thing is we need a reliable source on it. Geogene (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • I placed the photo in the Landers article as an evening shot....nothing more. Now let's get back to UFO. It IS a "remarkably so" image. You are taking your own preconceived opinion of what a UFO is, and discarding a true unidentified object as ....who knows. However, that is exactly what a UFO is.."who knows". I never made a claim that it was extraterrestrial in nature. That is for those scientists in the field of UFOs are for. I truly believe that you have reverted a truly unique photo that is definitely unexplained, and because of some religious or other belief, have deprived millions from viewing it. That photo got more hits than any other photo I've ever posted here. Why not let it be unexplained until it is? I really don't understand your issue. I am a pilot. I am a professional photographer. I witnessed the meteor shower, that's why I took the photo. Fine..I won't do anymore reverts, but you guys are acting like scientists......and you're not. I'll bet you anything you like, that no one can identify that object. NASA, and two UFO sites are still working on it!!! The only consensus so far, is that it isn't a Plane, Jet, balloon, or flare. That's why I posted it in UNKNOWN FLYING OBJECT sites here. As far as it not being a meteor shower......you had to be there my friend! -Pocketthis (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The bright streak is an airplane or a meteor and the other short streaks are startrails. The little jaunt at the beginning of the bright trail is due to the camera being moved (you can tell this because the cars on the ground have the same exact shape at the starting locations of those streaks). Compare: [10], [11], [12]. This isn't a UFO in the sense of it not being identifiable. jps (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing the "it shows an unknown UFO!" nonsense from the equation, it's really not a great photo. The exposure adjustments made in Adobe and the botched star trails made by the photographer make it a low quality image, even for the Landers article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • • Louie, you are lucky not to be laughed off the site with that total horse manure you just posted here. The only two things that were done in Photoshop, was to crop the photo, and eliminate the telephone poles. PERIOD. I have the original, NEVER put in photoshop for anything, ANYTIME you want it. Just tell me where to send it.-Pocketthis (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The attempt to use a smudge tool or similar to erase power lines also detracts from the quality of the image. --Amble (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• 99% of all professional photographers remove the Power lines from their photos. Unfortunately our country is littered with them, and not very attractive to look at. The original is still in my files, and if you would like a photo of power lines, I'll email it to you....just let me know-Pocketthis (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not able to see the cars on the ground (the streak of light on the ground might be the trail of car lights, though) and erased power lines -for the record- but I agree with airplane and startrail explanation. Intensity of the light sources on the ground might tell something about the exposure time. And, I guess the photo was taken with the camera standing still with a tripod underneath; another hint of the long exposure time is a slight blurriness of the tree leaves (probably due to the light desert wind). In the age of video cameras (even smart phones have one), it is quite rare/seldom that someone takes the photos of UFOs, and those photos are either fabrications or "one in a million chance"s. And 90 degree turn is generally for moving out of space/time into time/space -for the record- (some sources call it "slingshot gravitic light effect"). Logos (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I was taking a photo off a meteor shower. I didn't know that a UFO was going to show up, or I would have shot it differently. For one, I would have been aiming the camera lens at the UFO, not the meteors. And yes, the long light lines are from car headlights. The exposer time was around 12 seconds, which by the way, is way too short a period of time to get "Star Trails". Stars don't move almost a half an inch in 12 seconds. Also, if there is any blur on the trees (I see none) it would be from dept of field, not camera movement. No wind, tripod, no movement. Perfect shot. No matter what you keyboard scientists think of it.... doesn't matter. I'll always treasure this shot, and remember the experience with much joy.-Pocketthis (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't look like meteor shower; because all the streaks of light are towards the same direction and there are no stable stars in the scene as Andythegrump pointed out here. Meteor shower trails are generally towards different directions like in this photo (just for the record; Meteor_shower#Radiant_point). If someone calls star trail as meteor shower, most probably the rest of the claims are not true, either. Logos (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The plane might in fact be a drone as well; [13]. Logos (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Might be a drone, you could be on the right track. That's why it's called a UFO untill it is IDENTIFIED. When you folks here understand what a UFO is, you will not have any objections to this shot being where it belongs: in the unidentified flying objects article.

stepping back from this a bit, it seems to me that Pocketthis is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote his/her photo. Based on the comment above, he/she has been sending it all over the place. Promotion is not what Wikipedia is for, per WP:PROMO. If there are reliable sources out there that discuss this photo, I could see the photo getting posted in the UFO article with some content about it, but otherwise it should not be used anywhere else. If there are no RS, then this photo doesn't belong anywhere in WP. And circling back, if there are RS, in my view Pocketthis has a conflict of interest in the matter (see especially WP:SELFCITE and should not post it directly but should use the template:edit request function. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) (striking, wrong tone Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC))

• • The photo went into the articles it went into because it enhanced them. It just so happened that during a meteor shower, something else zipped into the frame. That put the photo's relevance in many categories. It is not a matter of "self Promotion" as you put it. I have no need to self promote myself here. I don't make a dime here for my efforts. I'm retired, and it's been fun contributing images to articles that grammar school kids might be looking at. It gives me pleasure to think I am contributing. This GANG EDITING you guys are pulling here is really sad. We are all on the same side. It's called education. If the original editor (Georgene) was really a concerned and dedicated editor, and she thought that this image may be a plane or what ever, she should have taken proper steps to send the photo off to professionals, before reverting on a whim. I did before I posted it. I am a pilot, and have many pilot friends. We regularly take photos of jets in the night sky with their red and blue lights blinking on time exposers. What you get is a ----+++++------+++++ effect. The - is the red lights, and the + is the blue. The image is always faint and separated. NOTHING like the image in question. The image was sent to MUFON and NASA on 03-10-15. Both have not been able to attach a label to the airborne flying object to date. If and when, the object was ever positively identified, I planned on pulling it from the UFO articles. Of course, I would never pull it from the Meteor Shower article, because that's why that photo was taken. I was witnessing a meteor shower. End of conversation. -Pocketthis (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You can see alternating red and blue lights in both the main line and alternating in the lens' internally reflected images that are above and below the oversaturated line of bright pixels. jps (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• There is almost every color in the rainbow in that UFO streak. Red and Blue are just two of them. That is one of the most baffling aspects of the object. The little square multi colored lights that appear to slowdown and become more apparent and separated, and possibly do a 90 degree drop, and eject something.-Pocketthis (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A close airplane with its full array of navigation lights on can easily outshine Venus. The patterns in the trail you are noticing including the discretization, the "90 degree drop" and the "eject something" are all seen in exactly the same fashion in the streaks that are the vehicle lights on the ground. jps (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pocketthis promotion and advocacy happen for all kinds of reasons, not just $. I get it that you and some other folks find this photo intriguing. That does mean it should be in WP. and btw, we don't do original research here, like sending photos off privately, to get private feedback on them. it wouldn't matter is some one showed up here claiming to be one of those experts, and said, "yep, it's wierd". we need WP:RS saying that. Things get kind of funky with images (as opposed to text) in WP but the same things apply. You cannot post a photo you took and call it a UFO based on your authority or that of some people that you talked to or emailed with. You cannot do that here - this place would be a garbage dump if people could, right? please think about that. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the first compassionate post on this subject. My problem is not with us disagreeing, it's with these two issues: First, I personally witnessed 2 meteor showers that evening. So to have you all call them "Star Trails" is like calling me a liar. I've been here as log as most of you. I'm not a new editor. I know what I'm doing here....to some extent...lol. The other issue I have is that this entire conversation of almost a full page with all of you having your own opinions of what you see in the photo, just PROVES it is an unidentified airborne object, or UFO, meaning we don't know what it is. It's so simple it hurts. I didn't even see the UFO in real time with the human eye. I only found it on the image when I downloaded it. I wasn't trying to come up with a "UFO alien photo" that night. I was simply trying to capture the beauty of a meteor shower I was so lucky to have witnessed. It was just after sunset as you can see by the mountain in the background. Waaaay too early for stars to be seen along the horizon, no less photographing them. Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pocketthis, you need to understand WP:CONSENSUS. Editors getting together on an article's Talk page (or a Noticeboard such as this) to discuss image choices and positioning is a normal part of Wikipedia process. If a majority of editors evaluate an image and choose not to use it in an article, that's not "gang editing", that's consensus. Most all experienced editors know that occasionally, consensus will be against them, and they accept it and move on - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks, However, that is a far cry from your previous post, where you accuse me of making the meteors in Photoshop. RIGHT? Now, let's get this Photoshop BS out of the way here once and for all. ANY of you that would like the ORIGINAL photo, NEVER been in Photoshop, with the telephone poles, wires, and poor composition before cropping...PLEASE go to my talk page and leave me your email address. I would LOVE to have you all inspect the original, and then we can eliminate the accusations, and then debate what we are seeing there. Thank you for your change of tone Louie, it is much appreciated. After almost 5 years of contributions here, and edits in the thousands, I would have expected a friendly debate on the photo's details, and a consensus reached, BEFORE it was reverted from every article it was in. It's hard to "move on" Louie, when you've been treated like a Vandal. I monitor over 100 articles every day, and reverse as much vandalism as anyone on this site. It was tough being treated like one. That's the worst part of this entire experience for me. I'll get over it. Thank You- Pocketthis (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Pocketthis. Your "meteors" are star trails. You can prove it by tracing to their common center of curvature which is the North Star off to the upper-right of the picture. You will find that they all form angular arcs of 3 arcminutes which correspond exactly to the exposure time (12 seconds) of the image. jps (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Silly Goose...there is no North Star in that photo. That is a photo of the Western sky just after sunset, Way too bright for any stars to be photographed as well. NEXT-Pocketthis (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I never said there was a North Star in the photo. The North Star is out of the frame, off to the upper right. Immediately after sunset, the first stars will start to form startrails through multi-second exposures. E.g. [14], [15], [16]. Only the brightest ones, of course, which are the ones you captured. If you don't believe me, go try it tonight. jps (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also sorry, Pocketthis. By "exposure adjustments made in Adobe and the botched star trails made by the photographer" I meant to suggest that the star trails were made by you during the exposure without you realizing or intending it, so the photo was in a sense, "botched". As far as assuming exposure adjustments, contrast, etc. were made in Adobe, sorry again, it looks so contrasty. So I trust what you're saying, but that doesn't change the essential issue: we need more than your word that the photo shows some extraordinary event, be it meteors or a ufo. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Louie. All is well. I agree that we need experts to say exactly what that airborne object is. But don't you see? That is what makes it a UFO. Saying it is a UFO, is just saying we don't know what it is. It implies no extraterrestrial implications. It's just plain "unidentified". I am going to give you the same advice I gave Georgene: Go to the UFO article and read what a UFO is. It will at least end THAT part of this discussion. Almost all UFOs in the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book, have been identified as being due to honest misidentifications of natural phenomena. Read this article here as well:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_studies_of_UFOs that should clear up any misunderstandings about alien implications. -Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

UFO has implications beyond its most banal definition. Our article on the subject UFO with which both LuckyLouie and myself have been heavily involved in curating (not without our travails) even indicates this. jps (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed JPS, but unfortunately the lead of our UFO article says "Culturally, UFOs are associated with claims of visitation by extraterrestrial life or government-related conspiracy theories". Not "sometimes associated", but "are associated". Moriori (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As it should. Today, the term is used almost exclusively by people advocating that alien visitations are actually occurring. That's simply the way things are. Pocketthis's attempt to revert to a previous denotation is admirable, but won't cut it in a non-innovative reference work. jps (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Note how your "almost exclusively" equates with "sometimes associated" but not with "are associated". Cheers Moriori (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Almost exclusive" is much, much closer to "always" than it is to "sometimes". jps (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

UFO or not, the photo certainly shouldn't be spammed across lots of other articles. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • I am sorry if you think it was in too many articles. I didn't mean to spam it. It was in the two UFO articles (where it does still belong in my opinion), and the meteor shower aspect drove me to place it in others as well. I never meant to over do it. I apologize for that. However, let me state one fact concerning that: If you go to "any popular photo", and look at where it is, you would be surprised to find some of them are in a hundred articles. For instance: I have a shot of some bees drenched in pollen. I put it in the bee article, and it ended up in dozens of articles world wide, and a bunch right here on EN Wikipedia. That is not uncommon when a photo covers multiple subjects. Have you ever clicked on a photo you liked? Then clicked on "Details", and it takes you to a commons page where all the articles it is displayed in is revealed? You should look into that.-Pocketthis (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editors here don't think your photo is a particularly good example of a UFO photo. I actually think it's a fairly typical example of a UFO-photo, but I don't think it belongs in a serious encyclopedia. There is no evidence that there is any meteor shower happening in your photo. It's also not the best evening photo either. I just don't think there's a good place for it here. jps (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • I will refrain from telling you what I think of "any of your opinions" in general. The public also disagrees with your opinion. That photo was averaging over 350 clicks (views) per month, when it was only in two articles. It got more hits in the UFO articles than any other photo there... as I recall. Personally, as a photographer, it is perhaps my favorite of all I've ever taken, and I worked for Playboy for a decade, so that is really saying something...lol. However, if the other editors feel that they rather not have that colorful, real and current photo in UFO related articles......I will concede, and we will end this madness, because the true story here is the public, and the kids and their education, and not any biased baloney us editors come up with here daily. I have a fresh battery in my camera, a little life left in me, and I will continue to click away. I am a Happy Camper!-Pocketthis (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've read through this entire thread, and I'm in agreement agree that we can't say that the word "UFO" simply means Unidentified Flying Object. Maybe it did once — briefly — but it's so heavily encrusted with the cultural associations of extraterrestrial visitations (compare Moriori's quote from our UFO article) that in common parlance it means those cultural associations. It's simplistic to say "Saying it is a UFO, is just saying we don't know what it is." As jps cogently puts it above, that's "an attempt to revert to a previous denotation". I'm sorry, Pocketthis. The reason I'm posting here is that when I clicked idly on your userpage and saw all the great photos you have donated to the encyclopedia, I was really sorry the argument about this one photo has upset you. I don't like to see the unkind suggestions about spamming and self-promotion in this thread either, because I don't think there's anything in them. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
  • • Thank you Madam. I really am here to educate the kids, and have something constructive to do with my time in my retirement. I'm glad you could see that as well. Thanks again-Pocketthis (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pocketthis just want to clarify - your photos are gorgeous and it is great that you provide them to WP. my comments above were off; what i was trying to say there is that with regard to this UFO thing, WP is not the place to post that picture in particular nor to speculate about it. you take a fantastic picture of a sky over Montana - great, that is what it is. But until some body publishes something in an independent source, there is nothing to say about it here. Would you please just pull it and replace it with regular pics? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • jytdog, the photo has been out of all of the articles as of yesterday. I'm only displaying it in my hometown page of Landers California as an evening shot of the town. Nothing more. When I go to the Post Office or grocery store in town, someone always comes up to me and says something to the effect that they love the UFO picture on the Landers page. Then they remind me of "The Integretron" that is located in Landers, and that Landers has always been synonymous with UFOs. As far as pushing to get it back into another article? NO. If it ends up back in the UFO articles, I promise you that it won't be me that put it there. One very last thing: This entire affair could have been avoided if Geogene had gone to the UFO talk page and put in her gripe there, instead of reverting me like I was a vandal. That hurt my feelings more than any of the accusations here. Thank you so much for being the "stand up guy" you are.-Pocketthis (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pocketthis: Of course it's just star trails and an aircraft. You're looking to the west a long way from the celestial pole, and using a moderate telephoto so the field of view is small--which gives you star trailing even with moderately short exposures. The bright reddish star (trail) near the top of the frame and to the right of the aircraft light trail is Phi Pegasi. The bright whitish star on the right side next to the tree, halfway between the horizon and the top of the frame is Upsilon Pegasi. You can readily identify the rest with Google Sky or Stellarium. The image contains no conspicuous meteors.

I'll be honest—the obstinate denial here combined with your vicious and entirely misguided attack on AndyTheGrump make it very hard for me to tell whether or not you are genuinely and stubbornly ignorant, or merely trolling for attention. Either way, you owe Andy an apology, and you need to back away from the horse before you get blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• • I went to Andy's page in good faith and posted a heart felt comment to his question. What I got in return was a wise guy one liner reply. There will be no apologies to Mr. Grump, however, I have no ill feelings toward him or anyone here. Also, the last thing this thread needed was a post by a threatening editor. I thought the issue was settled. I have nothing else to say on this thread.-Pocketthis (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ugh. I was not aware that this was a thing until today. Anyway, I think the article could benefit from some people who have experience in mitigating WP:FRINGE issues on Wikipedia having a once-over. The lede, for example, contains some wording that seems peculiarly hedgy to me as if there might be something to the conspiracy theories after all. And then there is the issue of relegating all the factual debunking to an anemic "response" section at the end of the article. I don't think there has been much academic research on these particular folks yet, though the skeptic watchdog groups may have some more points to add (and should be considered as WP:PARITY sources).

Anyway, can we get some help for this?

jps (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Good find. Quite a few conspiracy-theory articles veer in that direction, trying to achieve "balance" between proponents' claims on the one hand, and mainstream/reliable sources on the other hand. bobrayner (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. It's a WP:PROFRINGE masterpiece. I have tagged it accordingly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Related to this page:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictive programming.

Please comment.

jps (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I tried to get this article deleted a few times unsuccessfully. This is a guy who read Immanuel Velikovsky's work and then decided to do his own amateur speculations on comparative mythology and so-called "catastrophism". The guy wrote a book thirty years ago that argued that 1) Saturn was a brown dwarf a few thousand years ago, 2) it was much closer to the Earth than the Sun at that time, 3) Venus and Mars also orbited Saturn and were basically visible as disks, 4) the Earth orbited Saturn orthogonal to its rotation axis so that the North Pole faced Saturn.

Okay, so we can agree that this is totally bonkers, but the problem is that it is so bonkers that basically no one has bothered to critique the idea. The inappropriately attributed critiques included in the article make it seem that these are one-off problems with this guy's ideas, but since this person is not a famous crank, we don't have a lot of independent sources that mention him. The few we do have are so minor (and, I'll note, only published in fringe journals dedicated to Velikovsky) as to make the article very unbalanced. It doesn't help that this is a WP:FRINGEBLP and so we're stuck trying to evaluate nonsense ideas in a article that is supposed to ostensibly be about the person.

Anyway, I'd like to get some help with this. What should be done?

jps (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Crickets here? Okay! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (4th nomination). jps (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If a low-notability WP:FRINGE topic has little coverage by independent sources, then it's impossible for us to maintain a neutral article, so deletion is the best solution. bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dtalbott/bio notes.

Comments welcome.

jps (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis.

Comment here too, if you would.

jps (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

At the very least this BLP needs to be stripped of a lot of questionable info from primary sources controlled by the subject. (How many Yale Law graduates go on to get a "Master of Education in Counseling" from UT?) It's been through AFD once but got a "no consensus". I'm thinking that it might need another, final trip. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably ought to be. The first attempt didn't take, I think, mainly because the nomination wasn't all that good. jps (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Now showing: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Webre (2nd nomination). Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Rodney Stich is a conspiracy author. The article appears to be built upon fringe and primary sources. I'm not sure that notability can be determined by Conspiracy Encyclopedia. Thoughts? - Location (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Search for independent sources on Google Scholar on the subject turns up zero. I think this is probably worth deleting. Conspiracy Encyclopedia isn't a serious attempt to organize notable conspiracy theories. Their inclusion criteria is simply what interested the authors. As such, I'm not convinced that if the only independent source found is that book it is worthy of inclusion here. It may be that in the future more independent treatments of this guy and his life's work may be found, but until such time I think Wikipedia is best to avoid trying to keep content like this in articlespace. jps (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I can find next to nothing in any independent sources about Stich. He's all over the internet, but that's because he's churned out numerous conspiracy books. Paul B (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering what our guidelines have to say about the list of books noted in the article that is cited to what appears to be a self-published website. None of his books are notable or have coverage in reliable sources, so I'm wondering if this list meets the "unduly self-serving" section of WP:ABOUTSELF? - Location (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Opinions about Building biology? It appears to be a set of practices and principles with varying degrees of scientific support, and with an organization behind them. The organization, the practice, and the principles clearly exist, and are probably notable. Should building biology be described as a science? A pseudoscience? An organization? A methodology? An approach to indoor environmental health? A basically mainstream topic wide enough to include a range of opinions? --Amble (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Note the article was previously discussed here in 2009: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Building_biology. --Amble (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong question. If the focus is on how it "should be described", that gets into WP:Original research territory. The better question is "how do the available RSs describe it"? That's what the article should say. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there are many independent sources for it, that's the problem. And not all of the practice is pseudoscientific. From our article and the other reading that I can find online it appears to be a movement that was part of the history of environmental awareness about building, now diffused into various organisations around the world, some of which promote pseudoscientific ideas quite overtly, others that are more mainstream. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Try google scholar; I see several book and journal references, though I haven't read any of them personally NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

William Reymond is a French conspiracy author, and the BLP's only source is a primary source. Can anyone confirm whether sources, French or otherwise, support notability under WP:AUTHOR? Thanks! - Location (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fr:wiki says he is a co-author of the screenplay of Assassin's Creed. Sounds notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fringe writer, see [17], who has attracted some publicity. He calls himself an archaeologist but clearly isn't one. I did a heavy revert of several edits removing fringe material sourced to him and others at Copper Scroll after finding him boosted at Mount Sinai. He's mentioned in Jordan Lead Codices but at least I can see some reason for that. Holy Lance has had a paragraph about him for years. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In investigating this I found that Wikipedia has an article Rabbit of Caerbannog, which is not a fringe theory, per se. As much as I love Monty Python, I question whether this article should exist. Sorry for the divergence. jps (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What theory is not fringe? The argument that the Copper Scroll refers to Akhenaten is distinctly fringe. The comments about the dating of the Holy Lance seem reasonable. He is a metalurgist, not an archaeologist or linguist. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. My post was on a totally unrelated matter. Apologies. jps (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If he really did have a documentary on BBC2 then he's probably notable, fringe or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Guy (related to Paul Anka) claiming to receive messages from a multi dimensional extraterrestrial. Aside from a single story in the Toronto Sun, Anka appears to be unknown outside of the fringe world. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Anka. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Likely not notable. Commented there. - Location (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Van Monster Logos (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly notable. Commented there. - Location (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A theological article although with what I think is a fringe aspect, see Talk:Splitting of the moon#Separate Article for the NASA dispute. As you can see, there's a suggestion that the NASA dispute be moved out of the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Do must Muslim scholars believe that the moon literally split in two? I have no sense for the sources on this. jps (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't answer the specific question of what most Muslim scholars believe. But I do know that between those who think it did happen, and those who see it as a prophecy, it seems to be pretty much accepted in the same way as some Christian prophecies are by Christians. This page from a recent reference work seems to indicate that the splitting of the moon is expected to happen before the end of time, not that it happened during Muhammad's life. But people have and have had arguments about when some of the events expected in the Christian Apocalypse are expected to happen or have happened. My guess, and it is a guess, unfortunately, is that it is generally now interpreted as a prediction, because of telescopes not showing much if any split for a few hundred years now, but it is probably not something that gets written about a lot, because there seems to have been some earlier belief that it had happened, and theologically has apparently been adjusted to reflect observable reality, like it often is regarding prophecies which don't happen as they are supposed to. Some Muslim fundamentalists probably believe it in the same way as some Christian fundamentalists believe whichever political leader of the time that we don't like is the Antichrist. But I seriously doubt it is the case that currently most Muslims believe it. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the plain point that the Moon has not physically split into two since its formation deserves at least a mention in the article. Whether it deserves an entire section is something we might quibble over. The source, however, that identifies this misconception I think is perfectly fine. jps (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

HOUSEKEEPING NOTE - This is part of a debate at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) which spilled over to other threads including

• WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Anthony Watts (blogger)
• WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Anthony Watts (blogger)
• WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Anthony Watts (blogger)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

High-quality scholarly sources that non-trivially discuss this person's blog have characterized it as climate change denialism, obviously a fringe view. [Edit: See the seven sources in the opening sentence of this revision.] However since it is also called a "skeptic" blog by some popular magazines and newspapers -- as well as by some scholarly articles as a synonym for denialism (explained here) -- we have the problem of a fringe view being portrayed as non-fringe via the context-free use of the word "skeptic". The allusion to scientific skepticism is unfortunate, and indeed there is a source that specifically contrasts the blog with scientific skepticism.

It has hitherto been difficult convincing some editors that a fringe-related article should make use of the high-quality scholarly sources available. Instead, editors have been counting the number of newspapers and other sources that use the term "skeptic". Manul ~ talk 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

But you're not arguing that we should make use of high-quality scholarly sources, now are you? Anyone can Google "denial" and find the results that they are looking for. Please see Confirmation bias. What we need is an objective random sampling of high-quality sources to see what they actually say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And no, it's not difficult to convincing some other editors. In fact, it's extremely easy. All you have to do is provide an objective random sampling of high-quality sources which backup this POV. But you have neglected to do so. Here's an actual example of an objective, random-sampling of reliable sources.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Why must it be either-or? In cases where there is not an overwhelming preponderance of one usage over the other it is best to state both. Something like "Some sources (A, B, and C) characterize the site as 'denialist' while others (D, E, and F) say it is 'skeptical', and G distinguishes 'skepticism' in this context from scientific skepticism." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not even close. I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journals, and here are the results:

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size). But based on these results, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
3. Science - 1 Source
4. Denier - 0 Sources

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

These sources are high-end mainstream sources but not "high-quality scholarly sources" as mentioned by Manul. Manul, can you give specific examples? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources are in the opening sentence of this revision. Searching through mainstream independent sources in Google Scholar -- even searching explicitly for "skeptic"/"skepticism" -- every one I've seen regards the blog as climate change denialism (again see this thread). We care about identifying the fringe view of climate change denialism, in whatever terminology it takes. Making that identification prominent is part of WP:NPOV.

In the past I have pointed to WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." This is especially true for scientific topics. There is little indication that some editors have apprehended this principle, as we see e.g. foxnews.com being promoted over scholarship again. Note foxnews.com and others aren't necessarily in contradiction with scholarly sources; they just aren't discussing WUWT from a scholarly perspective. Manul ~ talk 02:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What about a formulation like "typically described as 'skeptical' in the mainstream press but as 'denialist' in the academic literature"? I think AQFN is broadly correct about the press (though some of those sources are a bit dodgy, e.g., American Thinker) and this deserves mention alongside the academic view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems like key ideas are being missed. This thread I keep mentioning is about how even scholarly sources sometimes use "climate skepticism" to refer to climate change denialism. We care about identifying the phenomenon of climate change denialism, not about identifying a word. We have no independent sources saying that WUWT is just a science blog promoting scientific skepticism. Most likely none exist. We even have a source that explicitly divorces WUWT from scientific skepticism.

Suppose we juxtaposed them, ...a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as supporting climate change denialism, and that is also called "skeptical". What would this convey to the reader? There would be the implied suggestion that these are opposing viewpoints, when our sources say that they are the same. We might be suggesting scientific skepticism, which is contrary to at least one source.

There is every indication that this is only about avoiding the word "denialism". Apparently it is like the terms pseudoscience and pseudohistory -- scholars use them, but they are viscerally hated by proponents of works so labeled. If "climate change contrarianism" or "climate change renegades" were used everywhere in the literature then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. I once cited a Nature article that used contrarianism, but there were no takers. The offer is still out there. Manul ~ talk 06:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"Contrarianism" is not sufficient or accurate.

Here is a source[19] characterizing the blog as "denialist", and I'm sure there are more.

And here's an even better one, by notable climatologist Michael E. Mann.[20]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I now see that Mann's book had already been used, but somewhat strangely not for the material most relevant to this issue, which I've now added.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

1. Skeptic - 3 times.
2. Meteorologist - 2 times
3. Conservative - 2 times
4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
6. Science - 1 time
7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
8. Denier - 0 times

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think by excluding papers that are behind paywalls, you have effectively eliminated the most reliable sources. Remember there is WP:Resource request] for you to use if there are reliable sources you cannot get access to. Please try this again. We have, for example, a number of excellent sources that are mentioned on the talkpage that you don't include here at all. By contrast, it seems that you've included a number of sources in your "random sample" that aren't as good as the ones mentioned on the talkpage. jps (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with WP:Resource Request request, but I will check it out and report back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is an easy compromise: "a website that scientists and scholars have characterized as promoting climate change denialism, also referred to as climate skepticism or climate contrarianism."[21] This is well-sourced and covers all the bases: we accurately characterize WUWT, and we address the terminology that has generated so much confusion. (More on terminology in this thread.) Manul ~ talk 07:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry. We're not putting fringe viewpoints into the lead. This is a WP:BLP for heaven's sake. At most, it belongs somewhere in the article text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you clarify what in that statement is a "fringe viewpoint" and how you made that determination according to WP:FRINGE? jps (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like clarification as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to:

• First, in order to answer the question of what is WP:FRINGE, we need to examine what the mainstream viewpoint is. Based on two random samplings of reliable sources, the vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources (i.e. the mainstream viewpoint) describe this blog as "skeptic", not "denier". Even if you combine both random samples, not a single source describes this blog as "denier". Now, I'm not saying that there aren't such sources, but the apparent majority of sources describe the blog as "skeptic", not "denier". Sources which describe this blog as "denier" are so fringe, that out of two random sample sets, not a single source makes such a claim.
• Second, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we don't describe someone as a "denier" unless it's widely used by reliable sources. There is no evidence that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources. But there is strong evidenice that "denier" is not widely used by reliable sources.

To put it another way, if we have 10 sources about something, and 9 say one thing, and 1 says something else, you don't cite the oddball source (i.e the fringe minority source), you cite the majority.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no way that your original research can be used to determine what is or is not fringe. You need sources to prove that. If you write a paper that is published and can be used to prove your point, then we can consider it. But your claim that your samplings were "random" and that this helps you figure out determine what is fringe or not is not how we determine what is or isn't fringe.

The majority of reliable sources, as demonstrated above, do describe Watts' blog as advocating what we at Wikipedia call global warming denialism. Even many of the sources you list do that.

I call shenanigans and ask you to stop misusing wikijargon in POV-pushing agenda-driven ways.

jps (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@jps: I'm afraid that you don't seem to understand what WP:OR is, and the claim that "The majority of reliable sources, as demonstrated above" is laughable given all the above sources support the exact opposite of what you claim. As for "POV-pushing agenda-driven", I'd love to know what agenda you think I'm pushing. Here's my agenda: I believe that we should follow WP:NPOV and treat fringe claims per WP:FRINGE. Again, if 9 sources say one thing, and 1 source says something else, you go with the mainstream viewpoint, not the fringe/insignificant minority. And I'm sorry, but if you can't actually put forth a rationale argument why should ignore reliable sources, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, there's little more I can say here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems is that in the academic literature "skepticism" and "denial" often are used synonymously with regard to climate change. So trying to draw a distinction between the two is artificial. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Much of this discussion is a red herring. I think the main question we should try to answer should be whether it is appropriate to identify the blog as being sympathetic or supporting global warming denialism. I think the answer to that is clearly, "yes." How this get said is a question of style rather than substance. jps (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good. Then perhaps you will back off your insistence to violate WP:WTW by not using a contentious label unless widely used by reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The attempt to use "random samples" and other arbitrary measures to dismiss the scholarly consensus on the matter is not compliant with policy.

Unless an exhaustive survey of sources is carried out in order to determine WEIGHT, DUE/UNDUE, etc., it is readily apparent that climate change denialism or the like is a frequent characterization applied by scholarly and scientific RS. Accordingly, including said characterization clearly does not violate any Wikipedia policy; in fact, it is practically compulsory according to RS and NPOV. I agree that it is a question of style rather than substance.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by AQFK's unwillingness to acknowledge that the sources point to global warming denialism as being the primary ideology that the blog supports. WP:Source counting is not the right way forward. Reading and understanding the sources is. jps (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@jps: I don't think you've read WP:Source counting very carefully. It's just an essay (which carries no weight) and you've mistaken the horse for the cart. Specifically, it cautions against using sources to bolster an argument. It does not caution against using sources to form an argument. Surely, you see the difference, right? Let me be perfectly explicit:

• If you form a conclusion and then try to find sources that validate that conclusion, that's bad.
• If you find empirical evidence first, and then base your conclusions on the evidence, that's good.

Surely, you see the difference, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Can you please tell me where there was an "attempt to use "random samples" and other arbitrary measures to dismiss the scholarly consensus on the matter"? This is a very bold statement, so I hope you have evidence to back up such a serious accusation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@AQFK: You have used the random samplings in a manner such as to impart authority thereto, and ignored the peer-reviewed book by a bonafide climatologist, Mann. Arzel has referred to a personal dispute between Watts and Mann, but has not responded to my query for specifics or sources, and PG has arbitrarily stated that Arzel is correct. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: I used random sampling in an attempt to provide an objective, non-biased answer to the fundamental question that we all need to answer: Is the term "denier" widely used by reliable sources? Even if a single source was omitted by random chance, this was never about a single source. This is about the term being widely used by reliable sources. So if an argument hinges on a single source, or even a small subset of sources, we still defer to the overall majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice a specific request. However, it is duly noted. Mann has made specific attacking statement against Watts, it is in his book. Watts has made specific statements about Mann, there is really no reason to go into depth as it is pretty clear. Arzel (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear because you are attempting to arbitrarily declare that Mann is unreliable because he lacks a "neutral presentation", etc. If you want to withdraw that position, fine. Please confirm, or add links to the detailed points related to the position.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You are continuing to avoid the main point which is that WUWT is a blog that is sympathetic to global warming denialism. How we explain that to the reader is what we need to decide. jps (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction. It is a blog which is skeptical of man's contribution to global warming, and the actual impact of global warming, and the prediction of what the future warming may be. Arzel (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Artzel: You have repeatedly ignored questions regarding your allegations about the Mann source. This is the last time I'm going to ask you to either retract your statement or support it with specific citations. If you don't I'm going to raise you conduct at an appropriate forum, such as AE or the present ArbCom case, very soon.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources don't disagree with your characterization (except some deny that it is explicitly skeptical) but you can see our article on global warming denialism covers these claims and includes them as part of the overall ideology. jps (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Watts promotes authors who believe the moon landings were staged (John Costella) and one who is active in searching for the Loch Ness Monster (Henry Bauer). Plus a handful of other people who insist global warming cannot be real because God would never have designed the earth to be adversely impacted by human behaviour. There's really nothing skeptical about his blog. — TPX 16:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Manul:, This isn't a FRINGE issue. We are not currently debating the substance of what Watts says about climate science like we do for other people at List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming. Instead, the question is whether we can include fact that some RSs use the label "denialist" when characterizing Watts' views and blog.

	The Speaker	What is Said	Applicable question	Relevant to current debate?
WRONG ISSUE	Watts himself	how climate works	Are those views of climate science WP:FRINGE?	No
RIGHT ISSUE	Others	how Watts and blog should be characterized	Is reporting some call him "denialist" a WP:BLP violation?	Yes, it's relevant, but no its not a BLP violation

We are debating the last line in this table. That's a BLP issue, not a fringe one, even if another editor is trying hard to count Google hits and frame the issue as a "FRINGE" matter. The applicable policy is WP:Biographies of living people#Public figures. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There's also a question of how to link and describe climate change denial to the article. This is an issue because it involves the advocacy of fringe theories. jps (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have repeatedly made clear that the issue is about characterizing the blog, not the person,[22][23] and my edits have reflected this. I have never inserted "denier" or "denialist" into the article. Every discussion that I have begun on the topic, here and elsewhere, is about the blog, not the person.

WP:PSCI (part of NPOV) is certainly involved because the blog promotes a fringe view, and it is against the NPOV policy to characterize it otherwise. WP:FRINGE is the explanatory guideline for the PSCI section of NPOV. See for instance Gavin Menzies' work being characterized as pseudohistory in the lead, which is the result of NPOV (specifically PSCI) being applied to a BLP. Also see BLPs that deal with pseudoscience. NPOV and BLP must both be upheld. Manul ~ talk 16:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing

• statements of pseudoscientific fact, with
• statements of value judgments.

PSCI could only potentially apply if we say something like According to Watts' blog, climate change is caused by XYZ. Your edits don't do that. Instead, your edits add value judgments, such as his blog "is characterized as promoting climate change denialism", the operative word being "IS", as in "is only". NPOV requires inline attribution of value judgments so that they read only as fact that so-and-so holds those views. Now if we were reporting what Watts says about some aspect of climate science, then I'm right there with ya, saying FRINGE controls. But so far you've been talking about value judgments, and it appears you want to tar and feather WUWT with value judgments that it is FRINGE crap. It's only a FRINGE matter if you report on one of his blogs' specific pseudoscience theories. Then and only then we contend with FRINGE, on a (crap)theory-by-(crap)theory basis. For sweeping value judgments applied to his overall site..... that's just not a FRINGE issue.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC) PS BTW, your example, Gavin Menzies, is distinguished in two ways. First, at that article the value judgments have in-line attribution to unnamed historians (though one could look up the names in the listed citations). Your edits lack inline attribution. Secondly, there appears to be no weighty RSs that disagree with the historians' value judgment. Are there credible weighty RSs that characterize WUWT as not-fringe? That's a question with no answer since the words "Denial" and "skeptic" are close to useless, due to conflation and ongoing arguments how (or if) they differ. When ALL the weighty RSs come together and do that unambiguously, then we can revisit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Remember the original wording was "scientists and scholars have characterized as promoting climate change denialism".[24] I removed "scientists and scholars" because of WP:WEASEL, even though I prefer having "scientists and scholars". The Menzies article may have a WEASEL problem, too, unless a source actually says something to the effect of "historians have categorized his work as pseudohistory". Perhaps this is a question for NPOVN.

I am glad you asked, "Are there credible weighty RSs that characterize WUWT as not-fringe?" That is crux. I have seen no such sources. We have a source distinguishing WUWT from scientific skepticism and sources equating climate skepticism with climate denialism in the context of WUWT. Considering that WUWT opposes the scientific consensus on climate change (everyone seems to agree on that point), and considering how overwhelming the consensus is, we wouldn't expect to find independent mainstream sources saying that WUWT is just another science blog practicing scientific skepticism. If there is such a source, then article would need to change completely. Manul ~ talk 19:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You're still not talking about a concept to which FRINGE applies. This is a BLP issue. If we get into "Its the sun, stupid" details, then FRINGE will come into play. Until then, wrong venue. It's BLP territory. (Note to self.... you screwed up spending so much time arguing theory before completing your lit review.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the vast preponderance of the independent sources that have written about the blog agree that it accommodates/is sympathetic to/is supportive of climate change denial. Do you a) agree with this assessment? and b) think that we should provide a way for the reader to learn about this in the article? jps (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of "he has been described as an advocate of climate change denial by (sources)." That gets around describing him as a "denialist," which might have BLP problems (if the sources don't explicitly say that), but does provide a way to provide a relevant link and describe his positions. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh, that strays close to WP:WEASEL. The sources show the reality pretty clearly: Watt's Up is a climate denialist blog, cited by climate denialists as a source for climate denialist talking points. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Happily we have a quote from one of the leading credentialled experts in climate science in the world, which identifies Watt's Up as having "overtaken climateaudit as the leading climate change denial blog", which provides a suitably authoritative characterisation without needing to resort to weasel words. We also have evidence that he has received substantial funding from climate denialist group the Heartland Institute. This is not a difficult call, we have the sources that support an unambiguous statement. The claim that this is not a WP:FRINGE matter is sophistry. Of course it is. He is known almost exclusively as an advocate of a fringe view in respect of climate change: he is, as sources state unambiguously, a climate change denier, and a vociferous and prominent one at that. Fringe applies here. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@JzG/help:, what Watts says may or may not be a fringe matter, but how other people characterize him is a question of fact Do the other people characterize him that way or not? and falls under BLP for public figures. Understanding the nature of the issue and applying the right guideline is hardly "sophistry" (definition, the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. I thank you for your assumption of good faith. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And this source is being overlooked. Organized Climate Change Denial, Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright, The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford university Press, 2011

"…conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine. While a few are hosted by contrarian scientists…, the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)…" --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Those of you that have the time, please help out. Right now, the lede of the article states that it is simply a "climate" and "weather" blog without identifying its agenda at all. I am serially reverted regardless of how I try to let the reader know about its ideological bent. jps (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It is very obviously a climate change denial blog. Only an idiot would state otherwise. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia is an idiot? Because we apparently can't bring ourselves to say that or even a decent euphemism for that. jps (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That's because climate deniers who don't like the fact, keep removing it. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We probably need to take some of them to WP:AE. The conversation is really not going well on the talkpage. Just getting people to agree that we should describe what the blog actually does has been almost impossible to do. The arguments seem to be focused more on what particular words are used in this or that source rather than what the content of the article should be. At the same time, sources such as Fox News and The Weekly Standard are being offered as being reliable in spite of the obvious fact that these sources are known to be partisan in favor of the political bent of Watts. jps (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Couldn't find anything about this lady or her films on wikipedia. Might be fraud, but notable [25] [26] [27] I guess. Logos (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Fraud or not, I cannot find anything that would justify a stand-alone article. I found a PubMed hit to an article in The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine Impact Factor & Information which was authored by Berthold E. Schwarz, but neither the journal or the author is reliable enough to elevate this to our notability standards. Is there an appropriate article that might be worthy of a redirect? - Location (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Berthold E. Schwarz had spent/invested his time more than anyother in investigating/publicizing this case. A redirect to Berthold E. Schwarz with a possible mention would suffice. Logos (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Is there a workable non-primary source that is reliable? - Location (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

None, other than Schwarz's paper/book, according to your search. Schwarz's paper/book does not count as primary (and/or unreliable). Even if it were, the needed source doesn't have to be non-primary according to WP:PRIMARY. Logos (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Schwarz's paper would be a primary source in Schwarz's article, and then, depending upon interpretation, WP:REDFLAG may apply. - Location (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth taking a look at Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, Ufos, Psychics, and Other Mysteries by CSICOP members Robert A. Baker and Joe Nickell. I think that would give us "secondary" and "reliable". - Location (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation is; the mention of Lansing case in Schwarz's article with Schwarz's paper as the source would not count as primary. It would be similar to WP:ANALYSIS, that is; "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.". More specifically, Lansing's account of the case counts as primary, and Schwarz's paper counts as secondary. Of course, there might be parts in Schwarz's paper which may be regarded as "primary", in accordance with the example stated in WP:PRIMARY: "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment". Logos (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There's another thing to consider when trying to decide about whether a source is worthy of inclusion in regards to fringe claims and that is the the independence of a source. In particular, I'm not convinced that Schwarz is fully independent of Lansing in the sense of being an objective researcher of her stuff. Arguing about whether a source is "primary" or "secondary" is less relevant than considering whether a particular source is reliably independent from the fringe belief itself. jps (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

One can argue that, WP:FRIND part of the WP:FRINGE guideline is not for including or excluding sources according to their independency rating, but for assessing/determining the notability and prominence of the subject/case at hand. If the only source about Lansing case had been Schwarz's paper, then the notability and prominence could be weak, even for a redirect and a brief mention. Since nobody is after a stand-alone article here, the sources mentioned in this discussion can secure a redirect and a brief mention, IMO. Logos (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see how citing Schwarz in his own article is not a primary source.[28] Who is judging his paper on Lansing to be worthy of inclusion there? - Location (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I was the one making that judgement, as diff points out. I still hold my argumentation/view about Schwarz's paper above, and think that no need to elaborate on further; as Schwarz's paper is not about himself but about Lansing. I haven't carried out a detailed search, but even the initial 3 sources were enough to establish the notability. The 1st source I mentioned has a reference to this guy Ivor_Grattan-Guinness concerning Lansing case, and Guinness's this book has enough material about Lansing case. Logos (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable to use a primary source once the importance of the material is determined by a reliable secondary source. In my opinion, Baker and Nickell are reliable and should also be cited in Schwarz article if you are going to mention Lansing. Regarding the first three sources you noted, I would like additional opinions on them as they look questionable to me. - Location (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you wish you can do yourself, as I think otherwise; that is Schwarz's paper is enough and is not primary to me. You might consider relocating all that LAnsing case into Thoughtography, as well. Logos (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This draft article seems to be asserting as fact the existence of "a phase of water that does not wholly fit into the categories of solid, liquid, or gas, but rather is best described as a liquid crystal". I'd be interested to know what mainstream science has to say on the subject... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in response to the editor's request at Talk:Gilbert Ling#Connection to Liquid Crystal Water, it sure seems like mainstream science doesn't have anything to say on the topic. While the editor (User:HailTheWarpCore, who self-identifies as a "Collector and tester of fringe theories" on his userpage) presumably means well, his draft is thoroughly uncritical in summarizing the minuscule number of extant, favorable, low-impact primary sources, and completely fails to place this minor fringe theory in any sort of context. The theory is so far out in left field (and espoused by so few people) that there isn't any substantive independent commentary or criticism, which should be a red flag for whether or not this theory can clear even a very low notability threshold. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Testing and investigating fringe theories is a hobby of mine, yes, but I really don't think this is best categorized as such. To speak to the validity of the research for a moment: I realize the current dearth of research on the matter, and the fact that there are less scrupulous people trying to hock LCW for some magical panacea, but I've tried to sidestep that matter entirely (I do however plan to make a section dedicated to the matter in the future, though it seems the drafting process has removed a commented out section for "Controversy") in the interest of maintaining a NPOV. I'm also not entirely certain that it is "out of left field", as the experiments to validate it's existence are very easily reproducible (the fact that I was able to do so while working in a nanophysics lab during undergrad is a testament to this, and what got me interested in the subject), and the primary font of research is the well respected University of Washington Bioengineering department. I have also collected as many reputable sources as possible (Nature, Physical Review, Journal of Chemical Physics, etc) while only citing non-peer reviewed sources as a way of establishing that a certain scientist researches the topic. Perhaps the intro should be rewritten to make it more clear that this is a fairly novel topic?HailTheWarpCore (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi HailTheWarpCore, welcome to the FTN! The biggest red flag I see is the connection to Gerald Pollack who seems to be inching himself way out on a limb (I know him from his perennial appearances at Electric Universe conferences). The proposal that water exhibits peculiar "emergent" properties is one that has been made by a lot of different and more-or-less independent claimants -- one of the most famous being polywater. The question we need to answer is, where are the independent sources? I think we might be able to scrounge up enough to write an article on "claims of emergent properties of water" with references to polywater, water memory, and those of Masaru Emoto, but we would need some good sources which connect them all lest we fall into the WP:SYNTH trap. jps (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi jps, I do agree there should be a page for the claims of emergent properties of water, but if you'll look at this, this, this, and this(to name a few), you'll see that the proposed liquid crystal structure of water is a far cry from polywater or water memory, the primary difference being that these claims are readily reproducible. I understand that water research as a whole has been stigmatized by polywater, but I think there is sufficient independent research on this topic. (iirc, polywater was never reproducible, and it turned out the original scientists simply had dirty equipment?)HailTheWarpCore (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think what you are referencing here is a coherent programatic claim. The idea that "liquid crystal water" exists is not being categorically declared in any of those articles specifically, though there are fringe-claims which may be obliquely referred to. The problem is that I think you may already be synthesizing a lot of these ideas together and I don't see the "independent research" you are claiming. The rejection of polywater and water memory happened because there was sufficient independent scrutiny of the topics that caused outsiders to carefully consider and ultimately debunk the claims. WP:REDFLAG would have us not report further rabbit holes of this sort (and yes, that includes Nature articles which have been notorious in the past for including certain levels of credulity towards outlandish water-based claims such as water memory). What we are likely looking at is a case of cold fusion where ongoing research is hobbling along by a small community of emergent water believers, but the rest of the wider community simply ignores these cases. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is in no position to right the great wrongs of the mainstream ignoring Pollack and the others who make rather outlandish claims about water behavior and so we cannot accept articles on such a subject without sufficient independent documentation. So far, you haven't really shown us any independent documentation. These are all just researchers who are connected in one way or another with these credulous "emergent water" groups. You need to find an independent physicist/chemist who is willing to take their arguments seriously. Even a good debunking would suffice to make the case for fringe notability. Right now, I'm sorry to say, I don't see that we have something that is notable as the idea is only sourced to primary sources without outside notice. jps (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I see the problem, and I apologize, you are right, I do need to find more secondary sources. Would something like this or thisbe in the correct domain? (Review article, not a primary experiment) I'm sure I could find more to establish a better secondary source library. Also, by "independent research" I meant to say that the research on the subject was coming from multiple different unrelated labs, not all from the same source. HailTheWarpCore (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Those two additional sources both also appear to be primary sources. What we would like to see would be a good review article that references all of these (it doesn't necessarily need to be peer-reviewed, in fact, though that would obviously be preferred). I'm also not entirely convinced that these labs are "unrelated". I think there may be a pretty easy to follow connection back to Pollack for many of these claims. It's kinda like cold fusion. (Additionally, there may be some rather prosaic mainstream claims which are not quite so outlandish -- more on the level of trying to explain certain aspects of capillary action that are not quite understood). jps (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, first link was a typo, meant to link to this. The second one definitely a review though, it begins with "In this work we review the literature for possible confirmation of a phenomenon..." In regards to linking back to Pollack, you might be right, but how many degrees of freedom are required before a lab is not considered "connected"? Admittedly, I just looked at the author's names, and made sure that they weren't all the same or appearing in each other's work.HailTheWarpCore (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a review as much as it is a meta-analysis which is a different beast. They are trying to tie together a lot of disparate claims and data to come to a conclusion that they want to have. What we need instead is a review of people who try to come to those conclusions. jps (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I see, so I need to find papers reviewing the referenced papers themselves, not the topic as a whole while citing the papers as evidence? (Sorry if this is elementary, I simply want to be as accurate as possible here)HailTheWarpCore (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to find someone who is willing to do the legwork of explaining what exactly these researchers are doing in the context of the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of water. This could be a paper (though I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a peer-reviewed paper on such a topic) or it could be some sort of sociology book or it could even be a blog-post or a popular science/skeptic discussion on a website or in a periodical. The key is to find recognition outside of the community of believers that this represents a novel idea that deserves attention. jps (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that before Wikipedia is to make bold assertions in its own voice claiming that "a phase of water that does not wholly fit into the categories of solid, liquid, or gas, but rather is best described as a liquid crystal" exists, we are going to need very strong sourcing indicating that the claim has been accepted by the scientific mainstream. Lacking such sources (which appear not to exist), we could only legitimately report it for what it is - an unrecognised claim made by a few specific researchers. Assuming that we report it at all. Wikipedia policy on notability clearly applies here, and if the only discussion of a fringe topic comes from the proponents, it isn't notable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you think would be a better wording? "LCW refers to the liquid crystal or colloidal phase of water" perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HailTheWarpCore (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 April 2015‎

We aren't going to assert that LCW refers to any actual property of water until mainstream science accepts the concept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It does appear that someone has by wp:SYN conflated the legitimate topic of liquid crystals with a great deal of nonsense. Without the conflation, I see no sign of wp:N.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no merit in this article nor any reason for it to be included. The LCW article misuses the term "phase" Phase is determined by temperature and pressure; so where on the phase diagram for water does LCW exist? The examples occur at room temperature and standard pressure, so LCW is not an undiscovered phase of water. It is liquid water, and the phenomena discussed in the examples are properties of liquid water.

The article is misleading in that it presents as magical and unexplained phenomena which are actually not unexplained: see surface tension, for example. Bulk liquid water becomes more ordered when the advantage of being ordered is greater than the cost. The advantage is enthalpy and the cost is entropy. Roches (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe it would fit as a mesophase between ice I and liquid water, as I think high temp brownian motion would severely disrupt this phenomenon, though this is just conjecture. For clarity, I have changed the use of phase to the more accurate term, state. Also, in regards to it nor meriting inclusion, where should this information then go if not it's own page? Should I draft up an addition to the properties of water page? HailTheWarpCore (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Where should it go? I would have to suggest (based on the complete lack of evidence that this supposed 'phase', 'state' or whatever of water has been taken even remotely seriously by mainstream science) that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the answer is 'nowhere'. It certainly can't go into our article on water per WP:WEIGHT: " the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As stated earlier, I am working on finding secondary sources for this phenomenon. HailTheWarpCore (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mae-Wan Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In researching the above draft, I came across this article. Is this WP:FRINGEBLP worthy of inclusion? I don't know that this particular person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

jps (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable fringe academic who has been advocating some semi-Lamarckian like ideas for thirty odd years. I added many papers which criticize her work. Article should not be deleted in my opinion. Quack Hunter (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree article should be retained. Many sentences begin "Ho has..." (as is to be expected). This visually resembles "He has...", so I changed the second usage of "Ho" to "She". The change was purely for readability and nothing else is meant by it. Roches (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidently the many comments made here have had no effect - and we now have an article asserting as fact that this supposed 'state of water' exists. Given the complete lack of evidence that the mainstream scientific community accepts the claim, or that it has even commented on it, I shall be nominating the article for deletion if the issues aren't addressed properly in the next few days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that there was no notification or indication on the draft itself or its talk page about the existence of this discussion, until a short while ago, AFC reviewers cannot be expected to smell out the existence of such discussions. In any case the submitter should have withdrawn their review submission when the issues were originally raised and not resubmitted until they were resolved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, as per here, it's been taken out of article space. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with draft-space, but this article looks pretty hopeless to me as written (it's a lot of original research, to be frank). I think it probably should be removed from Wikipedia and it certainly has no chance of being made into article-space content in its current state. But I don't know what the rules are about deleting drafts. Anyone know?

jps (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well then: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Liquid crystal water. jps (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I am wondering if someone can take a look at Jack Ruby#Alleged conspiracies. Lots of primary and fringe sources, and WP:WEIGHT appears to be an issue in that the section is about 50% of the article. (By comparison, Lee Harvey Oswald#Other investigations and dissenting theories directs people to the main article about conspiracy theories.) Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This person's views appear to be on the scientific fringe (e.g. claims that the Mayans predicted apocalypse caused by the sun reversing Earth's magnetic field). [29] Seems like we need to give much more weight to the mainstream view on this subject than what Cotterell thinks. Some secondary sources would also be nice. Everymorning talk 14:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've cut a lot from it. The text added by "Mysticdevon1" was copied word-for-word from Cotterall's website. It remains largely unsupported by independent citation. It also states that he won something called the "Voluntariado Cultural medal" from the president of Mexico. I can't find anything about this medal except in Cotterell's promotional material. The mixed English and Spanish in the medal's "name" is suspicious (what is a "voluntary" medal?). Paul B (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor claiming to be Cotterell is now saying that he wishes the article to be deleted. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Cotterell. Paul B (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent changes to the previous version have marginalized the mainstream view expressed by a majority of academic sources that ergot poisoning was the cause of the epidemic. Undue emphasis on a conspiracy theory that the CIA was responsible, sourced to reports repeating the claims of conspiracy theory author Hank Albarelli. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I took a peek at the wiki on the Reconstruction Era after doing some reading on the topic, and was surprised by some of the assertions as well as the prominence given to historical views that are no longer common (like those of the Dunning School) and that might be viewed by some as racist. See my comment on the article's talk page: Talk:Reconstruction_Era#General_Bias?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wswanniii (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC−2)

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

Looks like it was scrubbed by an online reputation company, this article uncritically promotes the WP:FRINGEBLP without acknowledging the highly fringe-nature of his publications and claims. Can we get some help on it?

jps (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

".. as there is a need for real dialogue between science, spirituality, and religion": kind of amateurish OR. Logos (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Even the version prior to the modifications by TheCapnPlanet reads like a resume. Logos (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So what's the best thing to do here? It seems pretty clear to me that the primary notability of this person is an advocacy of avante garde proposals that some might call quantum quackery while, to be honest, such proposals have had certain marginal influences in the philosophy of physics as well as, perhaps, the development of certain breakthrough research programs (Not sure how I feel about How the Hippies Saved Physics, but at the very least this is an idea that has not been dismissed outright). I think that much of what Kafatos is doing is benefitting from an alliance with Deepak Chopra and others who share that outlook, but I also see that he has a grounding in physics that is represented by the post he holds at Chapman University. Even if he didn't hold to some of the more wooly ideas he proposes, his appointment alone might be notable enough. On the other hand, it isn't clear to me he would have gotten this appointment without his connection to popularizing New Age synergy with quantum mechanics. Right now, our biography doesn't even hint at this tensions which makes it problematic, in my estimation. Sources are unfortunately quite thin on this account. Here's one: [30]. jps (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It may not deserve the time to be invested in digging. Having not read either one, the two books he co-authored with Robert Nadeau -who is a professor of English Talk:Robert_Nadeau_(science_historian)- can be seen as one of the many copies of popular-science pieces mimicking A Brief History of Time or earlier more notable ones. I don't think that an academic/scientist can focus on so many different areas of study; the only common point of which might be computational methods/tools. He is perhaps just a computational sciences scientist.

Chopra is not an all-knowing guy either; his education is in medical sciences, in the end. His quantum thing was just an unsuccessful speculation on the microcosmos. Logos (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Askahrc (talk · contribs)

TheCapnPlanet (talk · contribs)

I see a lot of similarities between these accounts and wonder if the person behind them is being paid as a reputation whitewasher for Chopra's organization.

jps (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks poorly sourced and overly promotional. Could you point out the problematic editing? --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

First are these users pinged with the user template? @Askahrc: and @TheCapnPlanet:. There is an obvious similarity of the signature of Askahrc and the username of TheCapnPlanet and I don't think that the user who wrote much of the Kafatos article was a "newbie". The subjects of interest between the two overlap. TheCapnPlanet may just be a throwaway account. Not sure. Something is fishy, but perhaps it's not worth discussing here. There was already a sockpuppetry case with Askahrc that was closed. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc. That's all I got. Not sure what to do here. jps (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it best not to look into SOCK and COI accusations without very good reasons and strong evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if TheCapnPlanet had done a great deal of editing prior to creation of the account.

So what are the content problems? --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Ronz and jps Hi, this is the owner of TheCapnPlanet (talk · contribs) account. I am not sure how to properly comment on things, so I do apologize if I'm doing it incorrectly. While in college, I used to work for Menas Kafatos and was tasked with updating his Wikipedia page a while back. I did my best to do it according to Wikipedia standards and read a lot of the documentation, especially relating to living persons and tried to keep my edits as neutral as I could. As for the other Askahrc (talk · contribs) account, I have no idea who that is. I did see the mention of Cap'n in his profile page, but that's about the only similarity I saw (FYI The reason I chose my username was because of my favorite cereal growing up as a kid, Capn Crunch, and one of my favorite cartoons, Captain Planet). Thanks for taking the time to ensure the integrity of the content on Wikipedia - my hat is off to you. Let me know if I can be of further assistance in resolving this matter.

Thanks, TheCapnPlanet. It appears that the similarities of the names was just a case of an unfortunate coincidence, then. Might I ask, when you say you were "tasked" with updating his Wikipedia page, how exactly did that occur? jps (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the other staff members suggested it would be a good idea to update his page. I agreed because it was lacking in detail and outdated - I don't think it even had a picture until the other staff member added one. I had experience editing wiki's before (I made one for my old job at a helpdesk using mediawiki), and volunteered to update the page. I knew it wasn't supposed to be a LinkedIn profile or resume, but rather an unbiased source of information, and tried to keep it that way as best I could. I used Neil DeGrasse Tyson's and Brian Greene's pages as inspiration. --TheCapnPlanet

Thanks for the explanations!

So we've an inexperienced Wikipedia editor (but with experience in other wikis) with a slight coi. I'm not seeing any scrubbing with a quick skim of the edit history. Maybe it just never dealt properly with the FRINGE issues? Can we get a list of what those issues are, and of any pov- and fringe-violating edits if I'm just not seeing them? --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussing these above. jps (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As of May 10, 2015, this article doesn't contain anything I really find objectionable. I changed one sentence that asserted that there is a need for dialogue between science and spirituality in Wikipedia's voice. Overall, I think the current article is a good one for a living researcher. The presentation of selected awards and publications is particularly good and concise. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any undue weight on fringe theories. That is, the article provides objective biographical details and doesn't make an effort to change a reader's opinions. Roches (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Author of The Mafia, CIA and George Bush, which yields lots of hits in the usual conspiracy-minded websites. The article claims that it is a "best seller", but I can find no reliable secondary sources discussing the author or the book. Can anyone else turn up reliable source upon which an article could be built? Academic title is "Visiting Assistant Professor"[31] which would fail WP:PROF. - Location (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Brewton. - Location (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Flower of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original research aplenty. Any cleanup possible?

jps (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I love "Possibly five patterns resembling the Flower of Life can be seen on one of the granite columns of the Temple of Osiris in Abydos, Egypt, and a further five on a column opposite of the building." From the article, it is clear that the name originates with Melchizedek, and is not an adaptation of existing name. The claims that the pattern is found elsewhere are a masterful synthesis. "An early example of a repetitive pattern constructed like the pattern of the Flower of Life can be seen in the Assyrian rooms of the Louvre Museum in Paris.[7]" "The extensive corpus of drawings of different geometrical figures by Leonardo da Vinci contains some figures resembling the Flower of Life" There are self-references to his own work. His website is here. Probably safe to delete the lot. Otherwise I will give the name 'circle of Damian' to any ordinary circle, and write a very long article about all the archeological sites where the circle of Damian can be found. You have been warned.Peter Damian (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess the answer is, "No." Thus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Beginning of the second paragraph in the lead starts with "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the fastest-growing branch of Islam is Ahmadiyya". What my concerns is that User:Peaceworld111 keep adding this fringe theory to this article. Using Christian source on Islamic article about Ahmadiyya. First Ahmadiyya population is only 16 million while Muslim population is about 1.6 billion. Second he doesn't like a clarification added to the same line that Ahmadis are considered non-Muslim by mainstream Islam. Eulalefty (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't a 'fringe theory' - it is a claim which is cited to a disputed source, and accordingly more of an issue for WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reliable sources for these esoteric giants? The sources seems to be from unreliable occult books and from the way the article is written it reads like it is claiming these giants actually exist. Quack Hunter (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

See Bob Doyle (inventor). I suspect Doyle himself is responsible for much of that article, and other related ones. None of this makes sense to me:

Doyle describes himself as an "Information Philosopher". He argues that information philosophy can shed light on some classical unsolved problems, specifically free will, values, and knowledge.

Doyle's basic argument is that quantum mechanics, especially the wave function collapse, and the second law of thermodynamics play a key role in the creation of information structures. These structures range from galaxies, stars, and planets, to molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. They are the structures of terrestrial life from viruses and bacteria to sensible and intelligent beings. And they are the constructed ideal world of thought, of intellect, of spirit, including the laws of nature, in which humans play a role as co-creator.

On the other hand I don't know anything about quantum mechanics. Advice please. Peter Damian (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This part of the article is opinion and/or original research. I think this article does contain some notable contributions. Doyle invented Merlin, one of the first electronic games, which was the best-selling toy in 1980. Unfortunately, part of the article is opinion and part of it is simply not well screened for importance. I think the article should be kept, but it needs to concentrate on concrete and notable accomplishments. Those interested can go to Doyle's blog or personal site for the subjective content. Roches (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Doyle (inventor). jps (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas J. Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Friend and business associate of George H. W. Bush who resigned from the CIA in 1953. The article uses crap sourcing in attempt to link Big Oil to the assassination of JFK. The issues here are somewhat related to a previous discussion about the Harbinger Group, but on a smaller scale. This appears to be a BLP. Is there enough to bring this in line with Wikipedia's notability standards? - Location (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not that I can see, plus it really very heavily on primary sources (hint: the Mary Ferrell Archive is a research store of JFK assassination-related primary texts). Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Devine. jps (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess Psychoanalysis industry amounts to less billions of dollars than Psychometrics industry: [32]. Despite the related RFC was closed as "exclude", it may benefit from an additional discussion with a broader participation. Logos (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is more suited to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Logos (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It's baaack. --Calton | Talk 21:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's also rewritten - it is now so anodyne as to be both worthless and unexceptionable. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably going to be kept. VandVictory (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Acting Witan of Mercia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think that is an article which could do with some attention. --_nonsense ferret 00:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a bit of citation overkill, but very few obvious internet sources to assist in fact-checking. Probably a good idea to start by weeding out those that don't meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable. - Location (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The entire article consists of a synthesis from primary sources. There is virtually no coverage of this fringe group, and what direct coverage there is, seems to me to be largely dismissive. I was born in Mercia and used to work at the King Offa pub, this group is somewhat less significant than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for input - please also see the directly related Jeff Kent (author) - previously nominated (by me) and deleted at AfD. I do not know what its prospects might be now --_nonsense ferret 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you post the link to the previous Afd? - Location (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

previous discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Jeff Kent (author) --_nonsense ferret 11:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyway to determine if the article is essentially the same as before? The claim to notability is as an academic, musician, author, and historian. Despite the vast number of sources given, I don't see anything that would pass WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC, or WP:AUTHOR. - Location (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign Mercia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This one is related to Acting Witan of Mercia and has questionable sourcing (i.e. primary sources and book sources that do not mention the organization). This reliable source shows what is likely the extent of coverage that should be in Wikipedia. - Location (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed Sovereign Mercia but it should possibly go to AfD. I also removed mention of these two groups from Mercia where they were self-sourced, as I consider the mentions promotional and WP:UNDUE. I was promptly reverted by the creator of the article Sovereign Mercia. I've removed them again. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And they are back. The argument being used is 'revert to longstanding version' which is true in a sense, the editor reverting me now is the editor who added them in 2008. I've suggested on the talk page that they and a few others be removed, added to see also where appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Another editor revised the text, adding a source that says "There is also a website dedicated to the creation of a sovereign state of Mercia (Sovereign Mercia website)." Hardly a reason for its mention and not something that can be used to meet WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

And now I am at my PC and not my phone, it was the original editor who added the source, another editor then removed material saying it was pov, also adding page number and url. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

James Shelby Downard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Conspiracy author discussed by author conspiracy authors. I could use a fresh set of eyes to remove the unreliable sources and material attributed to the unreliable sources. - Location (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a bit of promotion for his conspiracy theories and having such quotes nearly try to right the great wrongs. I am going to clean up this article and also see if any of these claims are available on reliable references, although I haven't found any yet. VandVictory (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Another new proponent of the hypothesis (or at least the watered-down dehydrated semi-aquatic version now current) is intent on 'fixing' the article, with unsourced claims that it is gaining scientific credibility, endorsements by Richard Attenborough etc - along with the usual sob-story on the talk page about how 'sceptics' are persecuting proponents like they used to persecute Darwin. As per usual, more eyes on the article would be appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree that there's too much undue weight. VandVictory (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

But "[o]ne only has to watch little kids on the beach"! I've reverted the recent changes because of the obvious POV-pushing but I don't think that'll be the end of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

And, no surprise, it's back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I see edit warring. VandVictory (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Another account that hadnt edited since 2008 has joined the editwar. Weird. Somitcw (talk · contribs).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock I'd say, as they reverted shortly after the other editor was blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Page has duplicated a lot of content from the original references, I have linked them at Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Duplication. VandVictory (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Richard Attenborough? Shome mishtake, shurely? Paul B (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, every day you find some new form of bollocks you didn't know existed. Only two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not certain about the universe. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to fix up some of these ancient astronaut proponent articles but this one seems to be problematic. There are no in depth critical sources that discuss his beliefs, the way the article stands is extremely unbalanced like an advert in favor for some of his strange ideas. Quack Hunter (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a couple refs to help make it clear that Dione's views are discussed in academic circles as an example of fringe ufo beliefs. Noticed Morris K. Jessup as an EL. Someone should look into that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Phantom time hypothesis: I reverted my own edit to here as it was pointed out this wasn't strictly allowed. You can't add a source which doesn't refer to the subject of the article. However this raises a problem I mentioned in an old essay here. "Because science generally ignores pseudoscience, it is often very difficult to find reliable sources that describe some pseudoscientific view as pseudoscientific". The esteemed Newyorkbrad has also commented likewise, saying "It is well-known in the skeptical community that there isn't clear and unambiguous scholarship refuting some of the more insane theories that are advanced, because they are sufficiently absurd on their face that no serious scholar will devote a chunk of his or her career to dealing with them. This is such a case, and the idea that Wikipedia policy requires us to treat the "Phantom time hypothesis" as a serious piece of historiography is a mistake. ".

Can I suggest a third way? Although <analogy> there aren't any source explicitly disproving the Flat Earth hypothesis, can we not gently add information about ways of proving the roundness of it? </analogy> I recently enjoyed reading Evolution of the eye, which is a good reply to creationist arguments that eyes couldn't have evolved. So would it be possible – without aiming to 'refute' PTH – to add a section about the period, mentioning Bede, the Popes who didn't exist, Johannes Scotus Eriugena etc etc. It could all be perfectly sourced, even if the facts about that period weren't established as a means of refuting the hypothesis. Peter Damian (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Both arguments of for and against would require some review, will see this one very soon. VandVictory (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding evidence, in any form, with the goal of refuting this conspiracy theory would run afoul of original research. It's not our role to prove or disprove anything. We should simply summarize what is covered in reliable sources. That said, the article is not properly constructed in that it presents arguments for and against as if they have equal weight. The 'for' arguments are entirely sourced to the books of the proponent of the "hypothesis". - MrX 18:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The stated aim would not be to 'refute' the theory, but simply to mention some of the events that happened in that period. Information only. Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, how would the mere statement that Anglo-Saxon chronicle was written during this period, be original research? Peter Damian (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is no more appropriate to mention events that happened during the period in this article than it would be mention Beyoncé in the Johnny Cash article. It is off topic. The question for you then is, why would you want to mention such events in the article, if not to argue against the plausibility of the subject?- MrX 22:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If there are very ridiculous theories that haven't been given any consideration at all by the mainstream of science, then it would surely be better if we didn't include them. It is the equivalent of something that only appears in a local newspaper. By putting them in wikipedia we give them an aura of respectability. --_nonsense ferret 20:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I used to think that, but then it occurred to me that one of the useful functions that Wikipedia can perform is to educate its readers. Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the Straight Dope qualifies as a reliable source: [33]. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

StraightDope is reliable for a skeptical viewpoint, which would apply here.

I'd think that FRINGE would require us to present historical events that happened during the time. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a non-peer reviewed essay by a retired academic here, and a suitably mocking writeup in Mother Jones. Those aren't the greatest sources but they're OK here per WP:PARITY. Peter's larger point still bears discussion: what to do when a "theory" is so patently insane that no one (or almost no one) outside the wackosphere covers it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

If no one outside of the wackosphere covers it, we shouldn't have an article on it. This article should be reduced to a few sentences and merged into Historical_revisionism_(negationism), in my opinion.- MrX 02:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, it's probably the best solution. --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

We can't suspend our policy on original research just because we have articles on pseudohistorical conspiracy theories. There's already sourced content about documented historical events during the period in question. Do we have so little faith in out reader's critical thinking skills that we have to violate our own policies to amplify the obvious? The real opportunity here is to restructure the article so that it doesn't read as two equal but opposite theories, rather than a fringe theory that few historians take seriously.- MrX 01:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• N seems to be the elephant in the room. If there are sufficient RS, there is an article. If it is patently absurd, someone will have raised it in context, historically. If it is contemporary FRINGE, then it is likely that there won't be RS supporting the theory without ample countervailing RS refuting it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's still be an original synthesis under current policy. The policy would need to be changed, and it's nothing something a local consensus here could do. I would think that would apply unless you find something in any of the texts to justify it. For example, if one of the sources mentioned the Tang Dynasty and the topic, you could use other sources on the Tang dynasty to flesh out about the dynasty (just without specific extra claims about the crank idea). The general rule is that if there is not sufficient secondary sources on a topic (containing critical analysis, not just trivial coverage), it shouldn't even have an article; see WP:NFRINGE. You can also link to relevant articles in the see also section. Second Quantization (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• I must disagree with Ubikwit's approach; there are any number of fringe notions which have attracted enough sympathetic coverage to make an article which apppears superficially notable and balanced (when written up by a sympathetic editor), yet have failed to attract much mainstream criticism because they're still relatively obscure, or so obviously pseudoscientific that debunking isn't worth the hassle. This is even more of a problem when we stray outside of science-related topics and look at things like international relations, history, economics &c. bobrayner (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

62.172.176.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User edit-warring to remove mainstream viewpoint from various articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. Both Gamaliel and I have warned the IP; I tried to explain about WP:UNDUE, since they seem to think articles should be equally balanced between science and pseudoscience. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC).

Update: That particular IP has stopped, but 217.43.13.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may well be the same person. JzG has semi'd Ancient astronaut hypothesis and I've semi'd Black Knight satellite. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

We'll call it a draw, shall we? Guy (Help!) 13:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Categorized under conspiracy theorist, John Coleman (news weathercaster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article is daily visited by a long term sock, who continues to give undue weight to opinions on global warming by adding about American Meteorological Society, even though they have no bearing on the views of Coleman. (full discussion)

Problem is with the line "The American Meteorological Society has affirmed the theory of global warming." It is irrelevant and not even used as similarly by the provided source in this context. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have semiprotected it. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I observe more problems with this page than this sentence. It has used some references, that are unreliable for climate change. Coleman is not an academic, and he should be more identified as a conspiracy theorist and there should be one section for criticism. Kingofaces43, opinion? VandVictory (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I was pinged to this one, but I can see some tweaking needed. I generally would just ignore edits made by a sock and discontinue the conversation. Given the context of mentioning the award he got from the AMS though and him being a fringe proponent, it would seem like due weight would call for us to just briefly mention that the AMS affirms global warming. We want to be wary about ambiguity by saying Coleman got an award and making it seem like the organization approves his viewpoint.

If the award is going to be listed, just do only that in the awards section, and briefly mention in the view on global warming section that he left the AMS because his views differed from AMS's stance that global warming is legitimate or however someone wants to word that last bit. That should be the minimum amount of content we're called to write with regards to explaining a fringe biography while not going overboard on it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Along with that, every issue has been clearly stated on the talk page as well as on the talk page of JzG.(check User_talk:JzG#John_Coleman_.28news_weathercaster.29) I do consider the harm in using sources in wrong context, that's why I mentioned the sentence above. If there are more problems with the article, they should be fixed as well. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• OccultZone. The opinion by Kingofaces43 is what I've been saying. King's opinion is also what is in the article, except for the placement. It was in the global warming section, but now awards. Source for him leaving is himself on a TV news produced video (42 seconds in). Source for AMS is the New York Times stating AMS' stance on Climate Change. (The American Meteorological Society, which confers its coveted seal of approval on qualified weather forecasters, has affirmed the conclusion of the United Nations’ climate panel that warming is occurring and that human activities are very likely the cause. In a statement sent to Congress in 2009, the meteorological society warned that the buildup of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to “major negative consequences.”) Those two sources are not being used in the wrong context. Source #1 says he left the AMS because of the AMS' stance on climate change. Source #2 gives AMS' stance on climate change thus backing up Source #1.
• The "Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year" is the highest award given to a broadcast meteorologist in the U.S. by the most prestigious and largest meteorological society. AMS also puts on the only broadcast meteorology conference.
• OccultZone has lied in his opening statement. This is MY edit. I am not a sock. No confirmed sock has edited the page since April 20. Only three edits by confirmed socks have been done in 2015.
• I am a meteorologist, sort-of. I have a Bachelor's and Master's in meteorology, though I am in computers at a University's meteorology department.
• VandVictory, do not call Coleman a "conspiracy theorist". This is not neutral. Use climate change skeptic. Also, I don't think he is in it for the money or politics, unlike Willie Soon or U.S. Republican Senators. Bgwhite (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

His views are non-scientific and promotes the Global warming conspiracy theory, it is neutral to call Coleman a conspiracy theorist. Why you are using Youtube as a reference? VandVictory (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Some sentences violated copyrights, I have uncited them and other unreferenced or poorly unreferenced. Already researched if he left AMS and why, I found nothing better than [34][35], they are not RS. VandVictory (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, just FYI, sources such as the The Guardian and the Washington Post characterize Coleman as a conspiracy theorist. Not saying this needs to be in the article, but VandVictory's use of the term is acceptable in this case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

YouTube: It is a video produced by KUSI, San Diego and put up on YouTube by the television station. It was made while Coleman was still an employee at the station. 42 seconds into the video he tells why he left the AMS. Last time I checked, local news stations are reliable sources. Remember, we are ONLY sourcing if and why Coleman left the AMS. Coleman himself can do this just fine under WP:SELFPUB. That it happens to be produced by a television station is a bonus. VandVictory, I would appreciate if you do not remove anything while we are discussing. We don't normally remove what we are discussing. Kingofaces43 (I think) and I agree on the two sentences staying in.

Critic/Conspiracy theorist. On Wikipedia we use climate skeptics. Global warming controversy uses climate skeptic. There is Category:Climate change skeptics. People like Willie Soon, Burt Rutan and David Evans (mathematician) are labeled as skeptic. Conspiracy theorist has a negative connotation. Climate skeptic is neutral. I think we all agree here that climate change is real and the "skeptics" are wrong, but we must remain neutral in what we write. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite it is true that these edits were originally made by a long term sock[36][37] and you went there to revert because you were wikihounding.[38] You have also spoken against the page protection, and considered JzG's remark as "attack".[39] There is no consensus for these edits, they have been removed by others all time.[40][41][42][43] It is WP:SYNTHESIS to add any views of AMS on his page, they are not in touch with Coleman nor their views have any connection,[44] when you claim Coleman stating that he left AMS because his opinion contradicted with that of AMS, you don't have to tell that AMS has affirmed the global warming theory, unless it has been similarly stated by the source but there is only a passing mention about Coleman on that article. Check WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. American Meteorological Society is scientific, while Coleman is not, simple. After reading these responses, I am not even amazed that you have used unreliable sources and you don't want to adhere to the concept of WP:FRINGE, NPOV doesn't means that you can state unscientific to be scientific. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, there's nothing wrong with using conspiracy theorist because it can be considered negative or critical. We do the same with climate change skeptic in that it means the person ignores science and is treated in the same category as quack, snake oils salesmen, conspiracy theorist, etc. Such a categorization is neutral because is a critical negative term that is warranted in this case. Either way though, the label is not important as long as there is an indication he holds a fringe viewpoint and legitimate scientific bodies indicate that holding such a viewpoint is fringe.

Occultzone, it is not a synthesis in this case to indicate the AMS position. WP:DUE calls for us to do this in the context of fringe views to make sure the mainstream view isn't obscured. When someone has a fringe view, we cannot write about that in isolation per our fringe guideline. In this case, there is the larger issue of needing to call out someone's view as essentially incorrect in the larger global warming, context, but also to make sure that the award isn't misconstrued as the AMS supporting this person's viewpiont. Issues from a fringe standpoint will be largely satisfied is those two things are addressed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 Change to "skeptic" or "conspiracy theorist" as you see fit. I'm not going to fight you there. While I don't agree, I think that is a change that can be made now.

OccultZone Kingofaces43, VandVictory (I think) and I all agree on the material should be in. We are talking here and now. Please stop making personal attacks.

VandVictory Please stop making changes on the page until we agree.

To all: VandVictory thinks the material about the AMS should be moved to the "Views on global warming" section. It was originally in that section until an IP suggested it should be in the awards section next to the AMS award. I see pros and cons to it being in both sections. Probably better next to the award for better context. Comments.... Bgwhite (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: You really shouldn't be using your admin tools in topic spaces that you're involved in. I think that should go without saying, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Admins are allowed to protect against socks and vandals. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43, do this source actually support that sentence in the same context? Either that source has to state similar or Coleman should be the main subject of that article, which he is not. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There are errors with that statement. [45] tells that 'barely half' of the meterologists of the AMS believes that global warming is occurring. It is unsure if Coleman left AMS or he was removed, because a secondary reference tells that he was 'rebuked'.[46] Should we completely get rid of those 2 sentences and just mention that he was formerly a member of AMS under the climate change section? Kingofaces, bgwhite and occultzone. Already enough amount of weight has been given to his non-mainstream views on the page. VandVictory (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

VandVictory The Forbes ref that says 'barely half' is an opinion piece. In the byline it states, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". But it also doesn't say 1/2. 1/2 gave answer A while the other gave B, C, D and E. Option B also lists human caused as a reason. How many said A and B? Ref doesn't say. That's why a better ref, which I'm sure there is one, is needed. But irregardless, the official AMS policy on global warming is happening and human caused."

For the second. The thinkprogess ref is definitely not reliable. They didn't give a source for the rebuke. Rebuke is not the same as removed. Coleman's stance on global warming is clearly not in line with the AMS official policy. Bgwhite (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As an AMS member of several decades I'd be most surprised to find that anyone was ever removed from the society. Certainly not for simply stating their views, no matter how incorrect. The only circumstance I can imagine is an especially egregious violation of professional ethics, and I've never heard of even that. To the contrary I know of one person who was convicted of a felony yet remained a member. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't removed, you are right. He just let the membership expire.[47] VandVictory (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not an opinion because there is a PDF file on that Forbes' reference. Coleman's stance on global warming is not in the line with AMS policy, a reference should state it. Present wording says like AMS is the only organisation that has disagreed with his views. VandVictory (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Vand, it says right at the top of article that it is an opinion, in big letters. This is similar to an op-ed in a newspaper. Both are not reliable. However, the survey you mentioned did happen. A better source is available. When I did a quick search, I came up with alot of right/left wing site arguing over it. Here is the actual survey. From the table, the 52% is misleading and is alot more complicated. But, I don't see how this is relevant to the Coleman article. Bgwhite (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

And this source is irrelevant to Coleman. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, check WP:VERIFY. Removing the whole fringe view is another option or just keep it on views on climate, not awards. Then WP:BLUE, having an obvious stance of AMS that is not exactly supported by the source in the same context is WP:SYNTH, it also makes article look polemic. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have to duck out of this conversation (too much on my plate right now). If folks feel they can't balance it all with WP:FRINGE in mind, I'd echo the sentiment of just removing mention of the award from the article and just focus on his views about global warming instead without having to worry about how much synthesizing we are allowed under due weight. Worry about awards when there are more to mention. That's the last other option I'm seeing at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Y'know, I've read all this thread along with the stuff at the talk page and I'm still not sure I understand the nature of the disagreement. If someone could distill it into one simple, declarative sentence it might be helpful in working toward resolution. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris The article mentioned Coleman won Broadcaster of the year award from the AMS. I added one sentence that Coleman left the AMS over AMS' stand on global warming. I also added one sentence on AMS' global warming stand. OccultZone's stance is none of it should belong and the award doesn't matter. My stance is he won the most post prestigious award a broadcast meteorologist in the U.S. can receive and he left that organization. Bgwhite (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am also thinking about the notability of subject, check this discussion, there is no strong coverage. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bgwhite, even though that's more than one sentence. ;-) Coleman is unquestionably notable per the big-league sources (NY Times, WaPo, etc.) Whether his resignation from AMS is noteworthy is a different question, of which I'm not altogether convinced either way although I'm leaning against due to the mostly-dodgy sources that have covered it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

With the award being mentioned, something needs to be said else it looks like the AMS is endorsing Coleman's views. The best non-neutral way I know is just to say he left the AMS because of AMS's climate change stance. I've used this analogy elsewhere... Noble prize and Oscar winners have "turned their back" on the award due to politics. This is no different. If you can think of another way, I'm all game. Bgwhite (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The award was given in 1983. I don't think people will be confused into thinking that the AMS is somehow endorsing everyone who has ever won an award for all time. Since he accepted the award, this isn't a matter of him "turning his back" on it to make a statement. Resigning from a scientific society is pretty easy to do and does not need to be accompanied by a lot of pomp and circumstance. It can be as simple as not paying your membership dues. Also, it's pretty easy to become a member of AMS [48], so resigning from that organization is not particularly noteworthy unless it is declared to be so by reliable independent sources. I don't really see that we have that here. jps (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I am not sure how this article has survived so long because there appears to be literally no notable or reliable sources for his ideas, this is probably why not a single reliable source has been added to the article in years. I would appreciate someone putting it up for a deletion. Quack Hunter (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I, too, cannot find any coverage about the author or his book in reliable secondary sources. Anyone have any success finding anything worthy of note? - Location (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No RS sources for a bio of Dunn. Also noted on Talkpage that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article. Redirected to Pyramidology#Advanced_technology where he is mentioned along with other fringe theory proponents. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice, work. Thanks for helping with this. Quack Hunter (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Good redirect. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 21:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See here Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I could not verify the word "broad" scientific consensus. The part "scientific consensus" is sourced but I could not verify all the sources verify it is the "scientific consensus". QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Bio that's a coatrack for claims of a "Space Power Generator(SPG), a super high-efficiency machine that produces power from vacuum. A prototype of the machine tested in the labs of Kirloskar Group exhibited 165% efficiency. This essentially defies the Law of Conservation of Energy." - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Tewari. VandVictory (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And now also claims of Free energy suppression. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And "perpetual motion is possible" - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The second law of thermodynamics must be updated because it does not fit observed reality. We have found a limitless supply of hot air from people promising perpetual motion and over-unity generators. Spumuq (talq) 16:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If that were to be true, Nobel-prizes in Physics would be about to be bestowed to the discoverer and statues should pop up like mushrooms all over the world. Quod non as the Romans said. Until you provide some serious sources, i'll stick with , thank-you-very-much. Kleuske (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And you win the award for achieving a perfect humour vacuum. Paul B (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Dean Ornish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a steaming pile of fetid dingo's kidneys, and the tags at the top, while amply justified by the content, are a WP:BLP nightmare. Unfortunately I don't have enough subject mattr knowledge to fix it. Anyone? Guy (Help!) 11:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I just expanded more info tot the lead, per your request. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

However, I don't agree with one of the tags that the article is written like an advertisement, considering that there is a criticism section against him. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You can certainly remove it, this is not a problem if the concern no longer exists. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a one-sentence criticism section. There is a need to balance some of Ornish's claims in the Professional background section, if there are sources that oppose his views. The Accolades section is much too long and should be reduced to only the most important awards. Including a link to a list of publications plus a few selected publications would also be an improvement. If the goal is to provide more detailed information to the reader, that is better done by suggesting the best places to look, rather than giving a list of dozens of papers and books. I don't have the background to find sources to balance the medical claims and I don't want to cut out the whole list of awards. Roches (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I added Ornish's name to the title of this section. Roches (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Slow edit war to reshape the article to the POV that the CIA dosed a French village with LSD, as alleged by conspiracy theorist Hank Albarelli...despite overwhelming academic consensus that the cause was most likely ergot poisoning- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like input on whether Robert Bateman and his scholarship on the No Gun Ri Massacre is considered fringe, as alleged by some editors on the page. Part of the debate raging on the page has concerned the reliability of Bateman as a source. A request[49] at WP:RSN yielded nothing besides the (well-established) opinions of two editors involved in the dispute. Thanks for your time.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#RfC: Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage? The material in question pertains to the significance of individuals that Oswald may have encountered during his time in New Orleans and whether that material is appropriate for inclusion in the main article about Oswald. - Location (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There are several reasons why we have an article about Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Among the most important reasons is that we can more easily keep conspiracy theorizing out of core Kennedy assassination articles, such as the biography of the assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. That biography should be based primarily on impeccable neutral reliable sources, and should exclude or minimize fringe conspiracy theorizing. Input from neutral uninvolved editors are needed at this article, and at all Kennedy assassination articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A user is adding claims supportive of the questionable practice of breast thermography (an inaccurate and generally unapproved diagnostic practice) in Thermography_(medical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Guy (Help!) 13:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the material fails MEDRS rather easily, or am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not missing anything. It's a diagnostic tool beloved of quacks. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A Request for Comments is in progress on whether to add the category of Pseudo-science to the article on Ayurveda at Talk:Ayurveda. For background information, Ayurveda is an Indian system of traditional medicine. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Long-term fringe proponent using the talk-page as a forum for his conspiracy theory/rants about skeptics. Now writing some libelous things about people, also swearing in his comments [50]. Future Kick (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have issued a strong warning, the user already has a DS notice, so any more of that crap and he can go to ANI or AE and be sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The ranting user in question comes and goes. For future reference, the DS alert on the user page is redundant; I actually alerted this user back in December[51] when he/she was using a now-declared alternative account. Also notice the admitted IPs on the talk page. Manul ~ talk 04:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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

New article. Badly-sourced. Credulous. Doubt it would survive AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The lede already appears to be of the "claiming there is controversy when there really isn't" type that WP:GEVAL discourages. Never mind that even the sources given don't seem too supporting for such a bold assertion, or for much of the article content and weight. Someone might want to talk to the page creator (User:Stefana.palade) too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The topic of twin telepathy appears to be notable as a myth discussed by academic sources: [52], [53], [54]. There's no need for a separate article (such as the existing one, which needs to be taken to AfD) that treats the concept as sensational, but the academic content might be suitable as a section in a target article such as Twin, Twin study, or maybe Twins in mythology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Just wondered if it should maybe be looked at more generally as a particular example of familial telepathy --_nonsense ferret 14:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I already redirected it. It would need vastly better sources. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Article about a fringe author on the origin of Christopher Columbus, an IT help desk person at Duke University, Durham North Carolina. Frequently edited by IPs from Duke itself, Durham, or nearby Raleigh. I removed the statement "award-winning" and some so-called awards with an summary which says "removing trivial "awards" (one being only recognition, one from his employer Lockheed Martin, the Boston Globe award seems to exist virtually only in articles mentioning Rosa, so again too trivial to be here - to be used they should have their own article". It's all been restored an IP from Durham. Doug Weller (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly notable? --_nonsense ferret 18:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

AFD? - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

A Fringe BLP that seems to lack a lot of outside sources except to hate-site watchdog groups (yikes!). It appears that lately Rense has been letting more and more neo-Nazis on his webpage and radio show.

Shouldn't rense.com be blacklisted? I mean, what is it a reliable source for at all? [55]

jps (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

See similar discussion from December 2014: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 44#Jeff Rense and Rense.com. - Location (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think his Nazi-sympathies have become more pronounced in the last six months, though. jps (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Rense is probably notable - you don't get an SPLC writeup for free. Does this noticeboard deal with blacklisting URLs, though? - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not formally. But we certainly can go through Special:LinkSearch and remove links manually. jps (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology.

Comment if you will. One of those interesting fringe theories that isn't pseudoscientific, just obscure.

jps (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, it would really help if some more people would comment -- whatever your opinion about the article is. jps (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fringe author, fringe book. I've clean up Moller's article a bit but left the editorial stuff in the book's article to others. I don't want the editor to think it's just me. I doubt that the book should have its own article, haven't checked Moller's notability. The edits to Jabal al-Lawz are very POV. Having said that, User:?Helenacan although not new only has made 1t edits so can't be expected o understand our policies. Doug Weller (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I redirected the book to the author, because the entire text of the book article was already in the author article - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw appears to be built upon fringe and primary sources. Is this even an appropriate fork from Trial of Clay Shaw? Thanks! - Location (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Though the List ... article does contain a number of unsourced statements that would need to be specifically sourced, I do not see that it is much more dependent on fringe sources than the other. In any case, they do need to be combined, based on our normal practice about forking . DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists should contain little or no prose in the body, otherwise it is a Point of view (POV) fork. So first, most details of the people involved should be removed and they should be trimmed back to one sentence. But then it is questionable whether such a list is necessary since the main article should provide all this information. TFD (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

DGG, TFD: Thanks for the feedback. I have opened up a discussion in Talk:Trial of Clay Shaw#Merge requesting comments on whether or not the list should be merged. - Location (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Do we have enough of a group to tackle the walled garden to end-all walled gardens? The transhumanist collective?

I'll start with an article I looked into earlier today:

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

This led me to

• Humanity+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alcor Life Extension Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Life Extension Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Foresight Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Transhumanist Arts & Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Immortality Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Betterhumans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Are all these institutes notable?

jps (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely. Here's how you can tell if a gerontologist is a fraud: if he mentions life extension, he's a fraud. The life extension cranks have had their way on Wikipedia for years, because basically nobody gives a damn. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I check that Guy really means what he says, if a gerontologist mentions life extension, he's a fraud? That would apply e.g. to Jay Olshansky (University of Chicago School of Public Health) and Brian Kennedy (director of the Buck Institute for Research on Ageing). How confident are you in these accusations of fraud? David W. Wood (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy is wise.

As it stands, I think one of those organisations fails the GNG, another is borderline, and the rest... well, they have abundant in-universe sources. bobrayner (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Checking the refs on Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, can you find a single one that is actually about the article subject? So far I find only namechecks, not more than one per article. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There was the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity which may explain why this forest of poor sourcing exists, but apparently no one has actually done anything about this. I'm not sure I'm ready to dip my toe in. Should we try a trial deletion discussion or should we go full tilt? I'm sure there is a lot more related to these topics. jps (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Alcor at least is notable - I know of it from the mainstream press coverage it's received (examples: LA Times, Arizona Republic, Google News). The article really needs those secondary sources though; from a quick look at the reference list, roughly half the article's references come back to Alcor itself. Kolbasz (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to try to get the ball rolling with this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longecity. That article has been tagged for three years now. jps (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So, now what do you have to say about this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies jps (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed this walled garden too. Quite a lot of these are not at all notable and could do with PRODs if not AFDs - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Life Extension Foundation may be noteworthy as a supplier of dubious supplements - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going through Category:Transhumanism and its subcategories adding appropriate articles to {{WikiProject Alternative Views}}, checking refs and cleaning up dubious ones, and PRODing the worst ones (anything I'd consider obviously AFDable). All assistance would be useful.

A common style of bad article I'm PRODing is a neologism for a common concept that already exists, and the article references support the thing referred to by the neologism but don't mention the neologism itself - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longevism - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I commented there, but unfortunately I don't think I can be of much help. - Location (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I put a pile of alternative-views articles in this realm up for PROD. Some have been deproded with better sourcing, which is an excellent outcome. More eyes would be welcomed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Article alerts - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.

This discussion is mentioned above, but the amount of argument that has erupted on the page is, well, noteworthy. Extra voices and eyes who have no irons in the fire would be greatly appreciated.

jps (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please do - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts Up With That? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A call to arms has been issued by the owner of the blog to right the wrongs that Wikipedia has been perpetuating against this fringe website.

Read all about it.

Monitoring the semi-protected article and its associated talkpage would be appreciated. A lot of new and sleeper meatpuppet accounts have gone to work already.

jps (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Notable also that any mention od climate denialism is being ruthlessly expunged from Anthony Watts (blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), most recently because Michael Mann "is not a blog expert" (he's a climate expert and a published expert on the climate "debate", but that's nit the same thing at all so clearly he's not qualified to judge whether Watts' blog is a climate denial blog or not. Obviously). Frankly, I am getting sick of the climate denialists' endless weaselling. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it has started. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 18:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

One person's "ruthlessly expunge" is another person's adherence to community guidelines. Per Words to watch the word "denialist" ought to be eschewed, (with an explanation of the rare circumstances under which the use could be acceptable, not applicable in this instance.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable. We are certainly not bowing to the legal and media campaigns to fight the decades-old labeling. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that there is a demarcation issue: when does skepticism become wilful denial? The answer in respect of climate seems to be: around the time of the publication of the last IPCC report. The IPCC bent over backwards to incorporate the (mainly politically driven) demands of those who dislike the implications of climate change. To continue to dispute the reality of anthropogenic climate change is, quite simply, denialism. The response to this might be denial of denialism, or it might be frantic back-pedalling, but to hold to a position rejecting or disputing the reality of anthropogenic global warming is, at this point, both scientifically and morally indefensible. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The controversy continues on, but there are some legitimate questions about the fact that Wikipedia has two articles: one on Watts and one on his blog. How to separate or not separate those two might be worth considering. Is Watts notable if not for his blog? I don't think so, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Is the blog notable if not for Watts? Again, I don't think so. Should there be two articles? jps (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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

This page seem to be used for promoting fringe historical theories and a marginally notable conspiracy theorist. Most references are to unreliable sources, blogs, dead links, untranslated links on Chineese, etc. Some are links where author "disproves" even .... articles in Wikipedia [56] and disputes well established historical facts, such as execution of Polish officers by the NKVD, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this and put it up for AFD last year. Note the flood of advocates. He could be eligible under WP:FRINGE, but I couldn't find third-party coverage of that either - David Gerard (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I would vote to delete it, but even an attempt to remove (self)promotion and unreliable sources (this is also a BLP page) were met with opposition... Probably I will give it another try. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Gulf Breeze UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this hoax worthy of a standalone article? At the very least, can we get some better sourcing?

jps (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There does appear to be plenty of GNews hits discussing the allegations (see here). I'm not interested in doing the work, but my recommendation would be to raze it and rebuild from those sources. - Location (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Poor sourcing issues fixed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

1976 Tehran UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "Remains one of the most well-documented military encounters with anomalous phenomena in history". Where to begin? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As above, there are some reliable sources ( see here) but the current article goes way beyond that. If minimal sourcing, redirect to UFO sightings in Iran. (Edit: Just noticed that the first GNews hit cites the National Enquirer.) - Location (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This source might help sort out fact from hyperbole. Gamaliel (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Sheehan (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This unsourced section: Daniel Sheehan (attorney)#Extraterrestrials and the Disclosure Project is mighty credulous. Do we have sources to write about this peculiar part of his legacy, or should the section simply be removed (along with the sentence in the lede)? Finding independent sourcing about this has been difficult.

jps (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

He was in the conspiracist film Thrive (WP article deleted) and there's a pile of pages to this effect, and more that show this is an area of interest for him - but no RSes I could find at a glance - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Miracle of the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fringe interpretations being pushed [57]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zacherystaylor/The Fatima UFO Hypothesis - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? - Location (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A biography of a fringy physicist. The man hisownself was permanently blocked by Jimbo Wales back in 2005, but he keeps coming back to a) scream about how he's being libelled; and b) puff up his bio. Looks like he's back again. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that article is awful. WP:TNT may need to be applied. I'm not even sure where to start. jps (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Pam Reynolds case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Academic sources removed and stuff that "challenges the materialist view" from this outfit are repeatedly inserted . - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

BLP of an "alternative journalist" that only cites primary source material. Thoughts? - Location (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No evidence of notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've AfD'ed it here. BlueSalix (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

My eyes hurt. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 09:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Articles for deletion/Haptic medicine is open for business. Alexbrn (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this real? [58] [59] Logos (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick glance left me unimpressed. The article looks decidedly PROFRINGE and the sources also look pretty fringey. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

[60] Logos (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jessup's admittedly marginal notability is entirely dependent on the Philadelphia Experiment. Jerome Clark is the only UFOlogist to offer some detail of the man's career outside of that WP:ONEVENT, and that's really not enough to justify a standalone bio. Best thing would be to redirect and merge to Philadelphia Experiment, which already contains much of the content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that this book is the main/first source which talked about such an experiment [61] Logos (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A relatively new editor is adding [62], a conspiracy website pushing the "Obama administration and their alliance with the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood." junk.[63]. Doug Weller (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fringe source. I reverted the addition. Related to this, input appears needed in Talk:Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories#Merge this article. - Location (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Per an earlier brief discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Stich. - Location (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Food_Babe - yes, I did say that (and I did not hear it from anyone else first and don't know of any mentions before that), but I don't count myself much of an authority. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this book, replete with fringe theories and written by the white supremacist, Michael H. Hart, notable enough for an article? I can really only find reviews in the white supremacist circles.

For that matter, is Michael H. Hart himself notable enough for a biography?

jps (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any noteable mention of the book from secondary sources currently used in the article, so I'd look to just delete it. Reference #6 doesn't even mention the book and only appears to be used as WP:SYNTHESIS. Reference #4 is the only seemingly independent source used to mention the book. I'd be iffy about it though considering that The Fountain does appear to take an Islamic point of view in their publications, so they really only seem to use Hart's ranking as a springboard for a very different discussion with next to nothing about the book itself. I'd say the book isn't notable enough for inclusion based on what I've seen so far at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Startlingly, I see a lot of familiar faces on the talkpage, but no one has seemed to notice the notability problems. Maybe because of the insider baseball connection to Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia? I just removed some original research and WP:ONEWAY violations on that page, but I'm dubious as to whether that page should survive either (perhaps a discussion better left for another board since I don't see much in the way of fringe theories at that article, TBH). jps (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Related, anyway: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia. We should continue to discuss the other articles more relevant to WP:FRINGE for possible adjustment. jps (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It's a fairly notable book. I've got a copy. A lot of people do. It's remained in print since its publication and there's been a second edition. You see it mentioned on the web (try Google search) here and there in reasonably serious venues,
2. There's nothing -- nothing -- fringe in the book whatsoever, with the singe and sole exception that in the second edition Hart decided to replace Shakespeare with Edward de Vere on the grounds that he had become convinced that de Vere had written the stuff attributed to Shakespeare. OK, that's one of 100. The other 99 entries are valid (and of course, the entry for the person who wrote Shakespeare is valid, it's just that Hart has (what most people would agree is) the wrong person).
3. I get that you don't like Mr Hart, which is understandable, and I gather that he's some kind of white supremacist which is regrettable, and maybe as he's aged he's gone a bit off the deep end... but there's nothing of that in the book. Hart's rankings are sensible, cogently argued, succinctly stated, and so forth -- which is probably a reason why the book remains in print and remains reasonably notable. If you want to argue for deletion of the article on pure notability grounds, take it to WP:AFD -- but leave WP:FRINGE, which has utterly nothing to do with this book (well, except the de Vere thing) out of it. Herostratus (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no particular rhyme or reason to the ranking system that Hart employed except Hart's say-so. I'd say that's pretty fringe in the sense of it being the idea of one crazed individual. Also, isn't the book self-published? jps (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

To get this back on track, whether the book is fringe, or Hart is a white supremacist, or his ranking method is stupid and arbitrary has nothing to do with whether there should be an article on the book. The only relevant question is whether there is evidence of notability. After all Mein Kampf is a blue link. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. On the other hand, it is still an outstanding question as to why certain non-notable books have articles and others do not. WP:PROFRINGE can enter in to such a discussion. I'm having a very hard time figuring out why this article exists at all. jps (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a legitimate question. I don't think that it applies in this case. I could be wrong about that. The article's existed since 2004, it's a reasonably interesting (if not deep) book and conversation-starter that somebody felt like writing about, probably, and in this case I don't think there's anything more than that to it. Hart's other proclivities are just a coincidence, I think. Herostratus (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been doing a bit more research. It seems the book has been translated into many different languages and is published by Citadel [64]. Not having a lot of luck finding many reviews from notable reviewers. A lot of Islamic apologists seem to like the book because Muhammad is given the #1 slot, in spite of the author's Islamophobic proclivities. Can anyone dig up any reviews from its first release if possible? jps (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

An IP has determined that since Rupert Sheldrake and Brian Josephson treat parapsychology as science, the article should be framed as if only skeptics view it as a pseudoscience. Additional views are welcome. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Sheldrake Summer Squad has come again to attempt to argue that presenting in detail and unchallenged the claims from Sheldrakes books is appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, there's a complaint at the biographies of living persons noticeboard from a notable person who doesn't like being called "fringe" even at an article talk page.

I think Wikipedia's nomenclature in this area is horrendous. We call a Sasquatch/UFO theory "fringe" which is fine, but then we insist on calling virtually every other non-mainstream theory "fringe" as well. This is a recipe for confusion and indignation. To top it all off, WP:Fringe offers a set of examples that are only of the Sasquatch/UFO type, thus undercutting the allegedly broad Wikipedia definition of "fringe". The whole thing is highly f*cked up, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk),

Can you point out where anyone has called the person "Fringe" rather than the specific claim being put forth? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If you mean that the person's ideas were called "fringe", rather than the person himself being called "fringe", that may be true, but the same remarks of mine apply to that. I dislike being called an idiot about as much as I dislike my words or thoughts being called idiotic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh, WP:FRINGE is not meant to be "broad". It's meant precisely to be a minority idea in the context of consensus WP:MAINSTREAM knowledge. The term is intentionally chosen to be non-judgmental (read WP:NPOV) in the sense that there is no particular reason to think that a fringe idea couldn't one day become mainstream or vice versa (the word fringe literally refers to the edge of a tapestry, for example, and when it was first applied to ideas as in fringe festival was actually something of a positive thing -- but then euphemism treadmill... so). The problem is often that people who have fringe ideas tend to not to like being lumped with other people with different fringe ideas. Global warming denialists hate being compared to creationists who hate being compared to perpetual motion enthusiasts who hate being compared to ufologists who hate being compared to quantum mystics who hate being compared to geocentrists who hate being compared to flat earthers and so on. The thing is, we at Wikipedia are not equipped to figure out which of these myriad of minority ideas are worthy of more consideration than the others. So WP:RS we take it and move along. There are instances where people insist that an idea is "fringe" when it is strictly not in the Wikipedia sense. These tend to be in the area of religion, politics, and social conflicts especially. jps (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between a 49% minority and a .01% minority, and there's no reason to lump them together. The 49% is a large minority theory. The .01% is a tiny minority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are very particular numbers you choose there. Examples might help. What 49% minority theory is being maltreated, for example, by this guideline (which would, along with WP:WEIGHT, encourage Wikipedia to use about 49% of its space to present the minority idea in comparison to the 51% majority, for example)? jps (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:Fringe, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." Sø if the 49% theory has aspects that depart significantly from the 51% theory then we slap a "fringe" label on the 49% theory. I'm just going by the policy here. If practice ignores policy, well, that just makes everything even more weird. Now, if an article gives 49% of its space to describing the 49% theory that's fine, but still it seems quite unnecessary to toss around the label "fringe" which is easily misunderstood as referring to the really bonkers .01% stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, it would help if you would be specific about which idea you feel is being slapped. jps (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I linked at the start of this section to a BLPN discussion, and that is specifically why I came here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion linked does not comport with an example of 49% vs. 0.01%. Try again. jps (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The hypotheticals corresponding to 49% and .01% are hypotheticals, obviously. The discussion linked is a more concrete example. You said above: "There are instances where people insist that an idea is 'fringe' when it is strictly not in the Wikipedia sense." Those instances happen, I think, because the Wikipedia guideline defines "fringe" so broadly: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a particularly controversial definition of what is fringe. Your hypothetical rather proves the point, in my estimation. As for the discussion at BLPN, I am going to need some crib notes here to understand what you think the problem is. Apparently you think there is some idea that is being falsely labeled as "fringe", but I what I need you to do is identify what that particular idea is and why it is being so falsely labeled. Then we can see if its the guideline that's causing the problem or something else. jps (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Per the BLPN link initially provided above, one of the people who employed the term fringe said it was "merely a comment that your opinion-pieces do not reflect the mainstream coverage". That seems to comply with the current definition at WP:Fringe, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." All I am saying is that it would be better to limit the definition of "fringe" to more outlandish stuff, rather than to every theory that differs in some significant way from the prevailing theory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, maybe you're overreacting a bit here? Ultimately, we are here to write an encyclopedia. If someone on a noticeboard discussion loosely uses a term that happens to comport loosely with this guideline, the question is what is the harm it is doing to the encyclopedia? Do you think there is some problem with this term being so used on talkpages in normal (if maybe heated) conversation that would have a direct and negative impact on content? Your hypothetical really didn't do it for me, you see. jps (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The word "fringe" is inflammatory. If you want this word to be used for any theory that departs significantly from a leading theory, then fine, but I respectfully object. Perhaps you're overreacting to my objection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You should think about why you think the word "fringe" is inflammatory. Above, I pointed out how it's actually less inflammatory than other vocabulary. "Against the mainstream" is another synonym. "Minority report" another. At some point you use these terms enough and someone finds fault with them. Really, "fringe" is an embellishment on the edge of a tapestry. jps (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The word is inflammatory because of its normal English definition. Per Fringe theory, "the term is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative roughly synonymous with pseudo-scholarship." Likewise, dictionaries commonly define fringe as "Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views". Using the word for all minority views (even ones that are not considered extreme or irrational or outside the realm of possibility) is bound to be inflammatory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Unconvincing. I think you may have missed where I mentioned the "euphemism treadmill". If you want to keep coming up with synonyms for toilet, feel free to propose them. jps (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I find your reply unconvincing. I have no objection to using the word "fringe" for ideas that are extreme. But using that word for ideas that are not extreme is unnecessary, and likely to be inflammatory. Since you don't acknowledge the existence of any problem, it's doubtful that we could ever agree on a solution. Thanks for the discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's also a completely inaccurate interpretation of WP:FRINGE. The guideline spends quite some time detailing "alternative theoretical formulations" and explaining how they are not pseudoscience, and, while they should be compared to the mainstream, shouldn't be dismissed as pseudoscience. The key word in "an idea that departs significantly" is "significantly". It's the difference between, say, species selection (controversial, but not fringe) and creationism (pseudosience) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia policy, something can be "fringe" without being "pseudoscience". So the fact that something is not "pseudoscience" does not resolve my concernAnythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"Departs" also deserves emphasis. Sources may argue against an idea, or ignore it entirely, without it being fringe, as long as it generally coheres with Western rationalism. Fringe theories depart not just from what the mainstream considers to be true, but what the mainstream considers to be conceivable. As an Wikipedia policy its meant to deal mainly with pseudoscience, or in some cases with conspiracy theories about historical events, where accepted scholarship is very clear. WP:UNDUE is the applicable policy in most cases; I do not think WP:FRINGE is a guideline that should be invoked at all when dealing with contemporary politics. Rhoark (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rhoark, you say, "Fringe theories depart not just from what the mainstream considers to be true, but what the mainstream considers to be conceivable." That's not in the policy now, is it? If so, where? If the mainstream view is that there is no chance that the minority view could be correct, then the policy should say that this is a requirement for a theory to be "fringe".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There is not a guidance page that says that. That's my interpretation constructed backwards from the topics that have broad agreement for being fringe. I think WP:FRINGE at present does not offer sufficient guidance on how being fringe differs from being undue, and how fringe material should be treated differently than material that is merely undue. Rhoark (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. If I have time, then maybe I'll mention this at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, more and more contemporary politics is intersecting with pseudoscience and other fringe theories. Global warming, GMOs, creationism, historical revisionism, nationalist mythologies, and alternative medicine are just a few of the areas that intersect with politics. Of course, the political questions associated with these controversies are only incidental to the WP:FRINGE aspects of these ideas. If a country decides to start a government astrologer post, that's not a WP:FRINGE issue, per se. The facts related to whether the astrologer is able to predict the future or not are, however. jps (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the actual discussion, the disputant appears to be consciously misinterpreting what's been said to him - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit says, "Classifying Alternative Medicine as pseudoscience... Wikipedia is on a misinformation campaign against alternative health and the healing arts... Natural health deserves fair representation.... We’re going to set the record straight. We need your help and invite you to get involved in the process. Please check the various reward levels to discover how to participate."

An editor on the alt med talk page suggested more is needed on these kind of marketing schemes by alt med promoters, to create the illusion of scientific justification, biological plausibility, or that there may be energies undiscovered by physics that alt med studies can reveal by "systematic reviews" that admit to using imperfect studies, yet get published as showing efficacy anyway. Does anyone have RS sources for these marketing strategies? FloraWilde (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The reward levels referred to are not for editing. They are for donations to a Kickstarter campaign (since discontinued) to fund the writing of an “unbiased” book describing WPs supposed abuse of altmed topics [65]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If the off-wiki campaign was discontinued in April 2015 (per the link you provided), do you know why this edit was made on June 25 2015? FloraWilde (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There really is no way to know the motivation of an anonymous IP with only 6 previous edits. If their vandalism persists, you can file a report at WP:ANV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was more concerned about getting RS that respond to another editor's call for adding content on alt med marketing strategies, of which this edit is just one example. FloraWilde (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (2nd nomination)

Comment, please.

jps (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Following up on the consensus gap in the BLPN discussion above, I've started a place for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Does_WP:FRINGE_establish_any_unique_guidelines.3F about how WP:FRINGE fits in the overall ecosystem of WP policies. Rhoark (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has started to include proposals for changing or clarifying the definition of "fringe theory," so more input from editors experienced in fringe areas would be welcome. Sunrise (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a question on WP:RSN regarding the use of RT.com in RT in CIA–al-Qaeda controversy. - Location (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Primo-vascular system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system

A very odd article on a complete separate vascular system missed by all the "conventional" anatomical texts, discovered in 1962 and "confirmed" half a century later by a group of people who - purely coincidentally - seem to eb vested in promoting the doctrine of meridians in acupuncture. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Bong-han. jps (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Has anyone looked at the sprawling mass that is ufology lately? It is atrocious — full of original research and references to deleted articles along with what seems like reams of coatracked content.

I'm not even sure where to begin with a rewrite. Is there any social science text written on this subject which describes the particular pathological thinking that leads people to think of UFOs as worthy of serious consideration? I have occasionally crossed paths with people who argued as much, but when I press them they tend to run away from my specific inquiries.

Help!

jps (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to begin. The section regarding COMETA should go as it appears to be built on primary sources and a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMETA found nothing to support its notability anyway. - Location (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

List of people associated with vaccination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people associated with vaccination

The article apparently originated here back in 2011, so dropping a notice here for anyone involved. Kolbasz (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)