Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

< Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Carter (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 26 August 2014 (→Acupuncture: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:36, 26 August 2014 by John Carter (talk | contribs) (→Acupuncture: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience

Shortcuts

Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days

Additional notes:

Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources.
We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed.
For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard.
Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Notable UFO incident?

Resolved – Article was deleted per AfD. Location (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What are your thoughts?

jps (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The usual. Guy claims he saw something and the government documents that he claimed it. Some other guy interested in UFOlogy eventually writes about it in a book, but no mainstream sources do. Without mainstream sources discussing the subject, it could be merged to some parent article. Location (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no notable UFO incidents. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Aw c'mon see, Roswell UFO incident, that's pretty notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

However in this case, I see no evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay then: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Falcon Lake incident. jps (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz

Resolved – Article was deleted per AfD. Location (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This to me looks like a case where a WP:FRINGEBLP is not warranted. I note that more than a few of the sources in the article don't even mention the person! However, I thought I'd put the case here before sending it off to deletion school just in case people know of some sourcing of which I'm not aware.

jps (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of the subject. As you alluded to above, the article appears to exploit tenuous links between Horowitz and Kimberly Bergalis as well as Horowitz and the Jeremiah Wright controversy as a backdoor approach to notability. The bulk of the article is built upon either primary source information or information that does not mention Horowitz. Location (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree I am not seeing RS discussing the subject significantly. There is an entry at The Skeptic's Dictionary here but even adding that to everything already in the article does seem to warrant an article. A quick check of some of the databases I have access to doesn't return anything of substance. I see no reason not to proceed to AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And so: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leonard Horowitz (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism - truthers etc.

Just ran into this. Seems to be just a propaganda piece. Eg "Doug Rokke is a former Army Reserve Major who enlisted in 1967. He considers it his patriotic duty to tell the world aboput the dangers of depleted uranium has posed to the servicemen and the public. He also talks about the military coverup about the thousands of affected veterans". Rokke for instance is some sort of "truther" who participates in neo-Nazi conferences. (Nordwave is an American National Socialist organization created in 2000 by Alex Hassinger.). User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret is another conspiracy theorist - see her website - which I note says she also worked on mind control for HAARP. Joyce Riley is also a believer in a massive coverup.. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And then we have Beyond Treason which evidently makes a compelling case for " US government testing of chemicals on its own citizens such as Operation Whitecoat and MKUltra being responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism currently does not include any reliable secondary sourcing, but I have found news coverage of various protests. Is there an article that touches upon criticism of depleted uranium to which this could be redirected?

Beyond Treason does not appear to have sufficient coverage to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (films). I was going to say that it could be redirected to Joyce Riley, but that article redirects to yet another unsourced article, American Gulf War Veterans Association. Have we stumbled upon a Misplaced Pages:Walled garden? Location (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And now I've found Dave vonKleist who sounds like a very unpleasant person (well, not in his article but then his article barely scratches the surface). An academic source for his article:And Those are about his "truther" leanings. The nastier side of him and Joyce Riley are mentioned at And we have American Gulf War Veterans Association which sounds innocuous until you look at their website. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Add William Lewis (film director) and 911: In Plane Site to the list of articles that should go. Location (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll get the ball rolling:

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Beyond Treason.

jps (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that opposition to the use of depleted uranium in weapons is hardly just a 'fringe' perspective - it is one that for example the United Nations has taken note of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether the issue is notable (it is), the question is whether these people and their films and organizations are notable because of their involvement with it, which as far as I can tell is not the case. If we had an article about Joyce Riley I suppose all this could be merged there, but we don't and probably shouldn't. Anyway, the association's article is now at AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Gulf War Veterans Association (2nd nomination). §FreeRangeFrog 03:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. This article is clearly fringe - it's all about a fringe view about a global conspiracy and pushes fringe people with neo-Nazi connections. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Riley receives trivial coverage in a handful of news reports, however, that is all I see of her in reliable sources. Perhaps Joyce Riley should redirect to Gulf War syndrome, but there is not enough for a stand-alone article IMO. The beliefs of both factions of the American Gulf War Veterans Association are somewhat nebulous, so I couldn't even recommend a redirect there. Location (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge anything useful in to the Depleted uranium article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The only useful stuff is about the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons so I turned it into a redirect.

Started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dave vonKleist - after I remove quite a bit of copyvio I searched for sources and failed. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would advise caution around the ICBUW article, considering that it was mostly written by ICBUW (talk · contribs), who may also have edited other related topics in a way that frames the ICBUW's position as the definitive Truth. bobrayner (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Figured I should say hi before you cleanse Misplaced Pages of anything to do with DU. By way of background ICBUW was launched to take a robust evidence-based approach to the issue. There is an issue with DU - as one might expect from the casual dispersal of intermediate level rad waste in conflict, particularly where there are no obligations to clean it up afterwards or even say where it has been fired. If you're still wondering about that have a think about what the response to DU dispersal would look like in DC or NY or wherever. However I would be the first to agree that post 9-11 DU got caught up in the US with all sorts of weird issues and it has done, and continues to do the issue a great deal of damage. I think what you need to do is to separate the global civil society campaign against DU (which gets results like this at the UN General Assembly http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/unga-2012-vote) from the views of wandering cranks, not all of whom are located in the US. There's loads more on our work here: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/publications or on the site as a whole. Happy to discuss further as required. ICBUW (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Last one standing? Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site. jps (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Something odd happened on this one. I'm inclined to take it to Deletion Review given that two keep votes and a lot of side dicussion doesn't seem to me to be much of a basis for closure. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No need for a deletion review unless you think there is some more to be added to the conversation. I think given the wide-ranging discussion we should try to make a college try on working on the article to see if we can't establish notability and independent sourcing. If that can't be accomplished, we can simply renominate in short order. The film actually seems to have its claims causing some influence over other articles. The weeding may have to be done on the outside and move in before trying to delete again. jps (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the close would be overturned at WP:DRV. In my opinion, notability of the film is dependent upon whether or not DVD Talk carries any weight as a reviewer of films and/or DVDs. The discussion in the Afd led to another discussion in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#DVD Talk in which there does not appear to be any clear consensus on that issue either. Location (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Worst fringe article on Misplaced Pages right now?

Resolved – Deleted per WP:BLPPROD. Location (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here it is! Ann Druffel and not a single reference!? Goblin Face (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Vast majority was copied from her website, so I removed those portions: . Among reliable source, I could only find one brief mention in a newspaper: . I don't see much need for discussion; redirect to Mutual UFO Network. Location (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup - no obvious evidence of notability as an author. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard Chanfray

Resolved – Article was deleted per AfD. Location (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article needs reliable sources for some of it's claims. Does anyone have any suggestions? I have done a few searches and found nothing of any value. Goblin Face (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As always, feel free to strip it to reliable sources. I imagine that he was a French Uri Geller and that you would dig up more in French sources. Location (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this bio meets WP:BIO. Fringe sources give his claims of alchemy some attention, but the only independent source, the "The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars", gives him a one-line mention as an eccentric playboy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Chanfray per my above comment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy

Resolved – Redirected as noted below by jps. Location (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In 1964, Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden was imprisoned on bribery charges. Bolden tried to weasel out of it by claiming the charges were trumped-up because he was going to speak to the Warren Commission; he later took a kernel of truth regarding a potential threat by an individual and claimed that he had knowledge of a wider conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy in Chicago. The Warren Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations said "bulls**t", but various conspiracy authors over time have unsurprisingly chosen to believe Bolden. Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy appears to have been built by User:Podiaebba upon those sources, as well as a few mainstream sources that also took Bolden's allegations at face value when he was promoting his book in 2007. According to the talk page, User:Ad Orientem challenged this as an alleged incident, but the challenge appears to have fizzled and the article continues to present Bolden's allegations as fact.

Should this redirect to the section entitled "Allegations of a Chicago plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy" within Abraham Bolden? I have spent a fair amount of time reworking that article, but I have left the lede alone until this can be resolved. Thanks! Location (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be redirected. The current article is trying to present fantasy as though it were true. Not the first time for Podiaebba; I hope that habit has been broken now. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

New Paradigm Films

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear notable to me, but maybe it does to you?

jps (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be notable in English sources, but given that this is apparently a Norwegian company, someone would need to check for Norwegian sources to know for sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Although most Norwegian material that is notable tends to end up in English somehow. jps (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a walled garden of promotion with no notability or reliable sourcing. Seems ripe for AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Paradigm Films, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Troll (singer) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rover (band). jps (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Rajesh Shah: BLP of a practicing homeopath

Resolved – Article was deleted per AfD. Location (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across Rajesh Shah when I saw that new editor had linked to it from Life Force Homeopathy Clinics. I tried to verify the sources, but most of them are dead links or irrelevant pages. The only one that checked out was this one from the Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy". I would like second opinions on this reliability of this source and the notability of the subject. Thank you.- Mr X 13:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly linking to way too many WP:PRIMARY sources. The media sources may not be enough to establish notability for a WP:FRINGEBLP. I'm not sure. jps (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Notability looks questionable. We wouldn't see the publication of a few papers as sufficient evidence of notability in conventional medical research, and proficiency in self-publicity isn't evidence either. I suppose it might be worth checking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine, but AfD seems appropriate to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input. I will probably nominate for deletion then.- Mr X 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors may wish to review other related articles: Homoeopaths by nationality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Bill Murphy (businessman) BLP

Resolved – Edited to comply with WP:NPOV -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a BLP of the founder of GATA, a fringe group that has been a major purveyor of conspiracy theories among gold bugs. There has been a persistent and ongoing effort by gold bugs to create and edit articles in ways that promote their views. This appears to be another example. Any suggestions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article has been heavily edited and I believe now passes NPOV. Suggest closing this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Rajan Sankaran

Resolved – Article was deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another article about a living fringe theory proponent with very little coverage outside homeopathic or esoteric literature. The best article about him contains a summary of ideas which appear to be an expansion of the homoeopathic concept of 'miasms'. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If he is notable, it's because of WP:AUTHOR. However, I'm not seeing it. jps (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Frequently published by Homeopathic Medical Publishers, which appears to be the name he uses for self-published material. The source noted above appears to be self-published, too. Is there any good target for redirect? Location (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a WP:SOAP situation similar to Rajesh Shah. jps (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, I cannot see any way this subject would pass WP:AUTHOR since none of his publications appear to be that important, even within the fringe field of homoeopathy. The AFD is strong with this one. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rajan Sankaran (3rd nomination) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jan Scholten

Resolved – Article was deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And another biographical article about a fringe-theory promoter: This article may be an AFD candidate: I can see no evidence of notability even within esoteric subject of homoeopathy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If he is notable, it's because of WP:AUTHOR. However, I'm not seeing it. jps (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Does not appear to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (academics) or WP:AUTHOR. Location (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to pull the AfD trigger? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jan Scholten. Location (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another WP:BLP about a homoeopath. As with the previous examples, the claims to notability rest almost entirely on self-published and fringe sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is a winner of the Right Livelihood Award automatically notable? jps (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a major award and the sources for the article about it look pretty dicey to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The review of Vithoulkas' The Science of Homoeopathy could warrant a merge/redirect if there is additional coverage of the book. Other than that, trivial news coverage is all I find in what we typically consider to be independent reliable sources. Those sources would warrant at least a redirect to Right Livelihood Award. (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

After a closer look at the award on top of Location's comment above, I think there may be an argument for marginal notability here. The article has significant problems but the award does appear to have some recognition in RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the question is whether or not it is a "significant award" under WP:ANYBIO. I perceive a bit of a contradiction if the award is significant, but the recipient has not received very much coverage in reliable sources. Location (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the notability of this award Award - I went through the list of recipients and other than Amy Goodman I had not heard of any of them. Any suggestion that it is an 'alternative Nobel' is pure marketing. Indeed, claims in media that this award is in anyway similar to the Nobel Prize seem to have been merely careless repetitions of an advertising strapline --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, about five years ago, people from his homeopathy school were editing here to promote Vithoulkas a lot, until page protections shut it down a bit. Adam Cuerden 17:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I recognize more than a few of the award winners including Bianca Jagger and Mordechai Vanunu. Calling it an "alternative Nobel" is certainly a PR-move that should be interrogated, but they aren't wholly obscure. I could even see a possible case for articles about all the recipients, but more research is necessary. Vithoulkas definitely gets mentioned a lot in comparison to some other homeopaths, I'd say. jps (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another AFD in which the question seems to rest entirely on whether the winner of a Right Livelihood Award is inherently notable. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shrikrishna Upadhyay. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that the award qualification criterion (WP:ANYBIO) is a subheading in a section stating "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Adam Cuerden 01:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Franck Gordon

Resolved – Article was deleted per CSD A-7 -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Franck Gordon - created a few years ago by a relative and edited presumably by himself. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

New Mexico School of Natural Therapeutics

Reads like a advert for this fringe theory promoting school. I spot-checked some of the sources in the 'press' section which mostly seem to be only tangentially about the subject, those that still existed on the Internet appeared to be little more than articles published by individuals who are associated with the school. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Unlike other schools listed, this is not an accredited institution, but it does seem to have some sources, although there are red links to less-than-likely spin-off articles. More research required, IMHO. jps (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've done enough digging without any luck. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Mexico School of Natural Therapeutics. jps (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears as though this is a type of school for those coming right out of high school vs. those that have some form of undergrad degree. We've seen elsewhere that the CNME is recognized by the US Department of Education as an accreditation body for the practice of naturopathy, so it's interesting that this school would state that they are not accredited because the USDE would make them alter their curriculum. Location (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine

A very quick glance suggests AfD is likely the best move. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine --Salimfadhley (talk)

Not sure about this one. Here's a source documenting this and similar schools in Canada]. Here it is mentioned again. As it is here. There may be enough to glean for an actual article here if someone could be careful. jps (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

May not be AfD material but needs the advert trimmed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Another private fringe-theory promoting organization. There seems to be absolutely no references to validate the claims in the article beyond a listing on 'HLC' which appears to be a privately run directory of colleges. I've tagged WP:N but suspect that this could be an AFD candidate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is an accredited college, though that doesn't mean much more than that they are eligible to get federal money and that they have a mission statement that they convinced a committee that they were at least trying to follow. jps (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The claim of Federal accreditation is highly fishy to me. It's unsourced and I don't think accreditation works that way. I always thought the states do that though I am open to correction from someone more knowledgeable on the subject. That and all of the certifying organizations are as bogus as a three dollar bill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, accreditation is a bit of a racket in the US. Accreditation is done regionally by "peer review" which generally means that every three years an institution is subject to scrutiny by other members of the accrediting body. It's easy to check if a college is accredited, and this one is . I do see that this happened.... but that's a rather external point. jps (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If the accreditation is legit, and given that Misplaced Pages has granted a near carte blanche presumption of notability to high schools and secondary schools, I don't think AfD is an option here. This one is probably going to have to be heavily edited to try and remove the PROFRINGE and POV tone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

US Department of Education points to Council on Naturopathic Medical Education which lists Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences as an accredited program. In my opinion, the current version of the article appears to be neutrally worded without any claims that warrant a red flag. Location (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I found non-trivial coverage in a reliable source: . Not sure how to rate this source: . It's probably enough to warrant removal of the current tag. Location (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I took down the PROD notice. I don't think it can be supported at this point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in working on the article, but I placed the above links on the talk page for someone else who might be. Location (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

California Naturopathic Doctors Association

Resolved – Deleted per CSD WP:A7. Location (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Religious symbolism of unity of opposites

Resolved – Article deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Stuff I made up in school one day, it seems. But maybe not. If you can rescue it, please be my guest! Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Religious symbolism of unity of opposites.

jps (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion sorting option

Hi All,

It dawns on me that our current system for notifying this board of every AfD is a bit cumbersome. Maybe it would be easier if we had a Fringe Deletion Discussions category and then had an automated list generated at the top of the board? We could then continue to discuss cases where the person wasn't sure whether AfD was appropriate or not.

jps (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but part of the purpose of this is to ask whether something ought to be deleted. this appears to serve two additional purposes (1) it implies that there may be some controversy in the deletion and (2) it gets what I shall refer to as the "fringe experts" notified and motivated because of (1). Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*That's a good idea. But we should still drop an AfD in progress note onto any discussion thread if/when the article in question is nominated for deletion. The reason for that is that normally once an article goes to AfD we don't want to be discussing its merits, or lack thereof of anywhere else, lest we raise questions of potential canvassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

While I agree in principle with your concern, the notification itself is what would cause canvassing, the issue with discussing here is just splitting up of the discussion/forum shopping. The canvasing issue is real though, I was recently involved in an AFD/DRV where there was an objection to the AFD because a particular wikiproject was not notified (I was not even aware it existed).However, I looked a bit into the history from that project, and every time that wikiproject is notified, every member comes in and floods with keeps. That type of automated canvass is an endemic problem as almost every wikiproject has vested interests or slanted perception of what is (or is not) notable/encyclopedic - often not in alignment with the wider wiki opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have had a couple of similar experiences in AfD where there was a sudden rush of KEEP !votes once word got out to one or another "interested project." It happens and I am not sure there is any silver bullet for it. All we can do is to try to be careful and avoid anything on this board that could be (mis)interpreted as unethical. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ad Orientem. There's enough "a cabal of WP editors is conspiring against us" paranoia among fringers in the blogosphere already, so no need to stir up more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

SuperConsciousness Magazine

Resolved – Deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

SuperCmag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an article that I think probably doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SuperConsciousness Magazine. The same use than proceeded to spam that magazine to a variety of articles.

jps (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Afterlife

There are two sections near the bottom of this article. The parapsychology section is filled with fringe sources (paranormal books and psychical papers) and the science section has fringe claims of parapsychologists like Raymond Moody being cited as scientists, sourced to YouTube videos. There is also Robert Lanza's fringe view about immortality being cited. I think most of this should be removed. Let me know any suggestions about this. Goblin Face (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the parapsychology section needs a complete rewrite to frame the existing collection of theories as minority viewpoints. The science section is much easier to fix, it just needs cleaning out of the Lanza stuff and introducing the concept of NDEs as something that scientists and medical professionals have, in general, tended to be skeptical of. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Just a light clean-up and a rewording for NPOV would suffice. Audience needs to see medical professionals' and psychologists' books/studies on NDEs. Logos (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoughtful perspectives on the nature of life

Resolved – Article deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Nature of life (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

begins thus:

Starting in the 1930s, as physics, chemistry and biology were maturing as sciences, a number of scientists proposed thoughtful perspectives on the nature of life ...

This seems a very curious and newish (June 2014) article giving often unsourced or poorly-sourced summaries of some variously odd notions about life. I think the article is essentially not encyclopedic. What say you? Alexbrn 12:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not an article, that's an essay. That covers ground already thoroughly covered in abiogenesis and life. Kolbasz (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is essayish, but I think that there is probably some salvageable encyclopedic content there. Its creator seems relatively new, and I think it might be best to userfy the content and try to work with him to find a place for some of it on Misplaced Pages. Just my 2c. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is anything worth saving it can be merged otherwise the page should be removed from mainspace. I recommend userfy it or AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nature of life. Anyone who believes nonsense Hoyle spewed is correct is sadly deluded. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Materialization (paranormal)

The IP turned new user persistently adds a text which is irrelevant and in my opinion false. Could someone please have a look at the text and also at the talk page. They are at three reverts already.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't this article come under discretionary sanctions? It is not flagged that way on the talk page. How does one verify that an article's subject matter puts it within the guidelines for DS and who can place the notification on the talk page? - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

New user trying to get LuckyLouie blocked at WP:ANI Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Filing at 3RR NB. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Majestic 12

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about "a secret committee of scientists, military leaders, and government officials" that investigated flying saucers. It appears that there is coverage of this in reliable sources (e.g. this book is from an academic source; primary source documentation from the FBI... note "BOGUS"" handwritten over some of the documents), but the article contains quite a few fringe sources and I'm not sure that primary source documentation has been used properly. Location (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't like how the article is written and I'll agree that it has a lot of questionable sources. I assume the "case for/case against" approach is the consensus between the skeptics and the tinfoil types. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Horerczy

Resolved – Article deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly of interest Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Horerczy. Apparently this is a creature that breathes out Alps in the form of butterflies. No evidence for its folkloric existence has yet been found except in the writing of this person. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ropen

Resolved – Article deleted per AfD -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"The Ropen is a flying cryptid alleged to live in the vicinity of Papua New Guinea. According to the second edition of the book Searching for Ropens, it is "any featherless creature that flies in the Southwest Pacific, and has a tail-length more than 25% of its wingspan," but according to the third edition of that book, it is "A modern pterosaur with Rhamphorhynchoid characteristics."

Page could probably use some eyeballs... Followed by (at the least) a few whacks with the reality stick.

Yeah looks a bit ropey. Tempting just to cut the unsourced stuff as that would yield an immediate improvement... Alexbrn 21:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's suggested here that the entire "Ropen" enterprise is the result of sockpuppeting by a single person. There's a plurality of sources in the article, but if they are actually all essentially from a single person they're all primary sources, in addition to being just plain unreliable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Aside from a number of of crypto-fringe sources and a few creationist books pushing the view that this mythical creature exists, are there any independent reliable sources that could be used to write an objective article? If not, AfD is the place for it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at thwacking some sense into the article, but I agree AfD is the place to put it. The books appear to be vanity press material, and the website sources exist solely to push them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ropen -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Trikasthanas (astrology)

This article appears to make no sense at all. That's probably because it deals with one of the more outré aspects of tantric astrology, or it could just be a massive hoax. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Aditya soni, many contributions give me cause for concern

Aditya soni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was just going through the contributions of this user. This editor seems to have contributed a large number of articles about Indian Astrology, all are written in the same excessively dense style as Trikasthanas (astrology). All that I saw are weakly sourced and present fringe theories as fact. Would any editors care to scrutinize this user's work? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Among several authored pages, there's Unmaad_yoga_(astrology) (an astrological explanation for insanity), Reka yoga (astrology) (an astrological explanation for Einstein), Dhi (Hindu thought) (an entire article for a word). This user is quite prolific, it could take quite a long time to go through everything. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That just dinged the crackpot index. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology). --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh Lord, s/he has 160 created articles. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't even know where to begin. It's very difficult to tell in even the slightest bit what most of them are talking about. Take the newest one: Rasasvada. If I were to try to paraphrase the opening, I'd get: "Rasasvada is a word that means appreciation". It is in no way clear what the rest of the article has to do with this, and the rest of the article doesn't create any sense of meaning in my head at all (I see words, I can certainly read it, and yet...). Is it practical to go through all 160 individually and try to deal with them? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely impenetrable. AS CC says, where to begin? Here's a sample sentence from the Trikasthanas article; this is one sentence, mind you. "Kalidasa in his Uttara Kalamrita vide Sloka IV.22 states that the lord of the 8th in 6th or in the 12th, the lord of the 6th in the 8th or in the 12th and the lord of the 12th in the 6th or in the 8th house from the Lagna (Ascendant) give rise to extraordinary Raja Yogas provided these lords are mutually related by conjunction or by mutual aspect or by mutual exchange of signs, and at the same time do not relate with any other planet i.e. house-lord; and in case all three are involved then a very powerful Kalidasa in his Uttara Kalamrita vide Sloka IV.22 states that the lord of the 8th in 6th or in the 12th, the lord of the 6th in the 8th or in the 12th and the lord of the 12th in the 6th or in the 8th house from the Lagna (Ascendant) give rise to extraordinary Raja Yogas provided these lords are mutually related by conjunction or by mutual aspect or by mutual exchange of signs, and at the same time do not relate with any other planet i.e. house-lord; and in case all three are involved then a very powerful Raja yoga will arise." Wow. --Seduisant (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to raise this on the Original Research noticeboard. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We are going to need some help, and I think we are going to need an Admin to get involved in this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you willing to pass on our concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. Please link back to here so that interested individuals can track progress of the matter. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology) --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've come across this editor before and warned them of their violations of WP:FRINGE: User_talk:Aditya_soni#Fringe_guidelines. They didn't even respond. They completely lack the ability of writing their belief system in a neutral way. Instead of attributing beliefs, the editor is writing it as fact. Second Quantization (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Per the discussion in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) and the other Afds, it appears that User:Aditya soni has no concerns that these articles are unreadable to the vast majority of Wikipedians. Other examples of this lack of concern show in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology): "I am not prepared to submit explanations because I can explain things only to those who understand these subjects" and "...I have posted articles dealing with Hindu astrology which can be more appreciated perhaps only by those who are in know of astrology." If the terminology used in these articles is so "technical" that it is meant only to be understood with those who have advanced knowledge of Hindu astrology, then WP:NOTJARGON also applies. Location (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any precedent or process for bumping a large number of articles from main-space into the AFC space? That seems like a humane alternative to just AFD'ing (possibly) over 100 articles. I really do think that this individual should have been writing a book on their favorite subject. It's unfortunate that he/she has been using Misplaced Pages as an outlet for his/her own fringe research. Speaking of which, this editor has stated that all the articles on Hindu Astrology were 'reviewed' - so the question is who is reviewing this stuff and how did it pass review before? --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology) discussion, this editor owns that they have created 160 yoga-astrology articles. I haven't the inclination to verify this, but if true, Salimfadhey's question above becomes vital. (I did scan two pages of contribs and found at least a score of N articles.) No one on this forum has time to address 160 AfDs at once. --Seduisant (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The list of N articles, a few of which are moves, can be found here. Location (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I am going to post a link to this discussion on ANI and ask for some help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI DIscussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:ANI includes a proposal to topic-ban the editor from creating new articles in article space (rather than going through AFC review). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this at ANI, but it seems worth repeating here. How do most of these articles differ from the ones we have on esoteric topics in Christianity? If one were to prepend "For the large majority of Hindus" to most of these articles they would be indistinguishable to me from Holy Spirit (Christianity) which begins: "For the large majority of Christians" and then is entirely based on WP:INUNIVERSE sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about this as well. However, Holy Spirit (Christianity) does at least cite sources outside of holy books, does a little more to cover the topic in a way that's understandable by people outside the group, establishes some importance in artwork, and to some degree establishes the "Holy Spirit" as a major aspect of the religion that may consequently be necessary encyclopedic coverage. Those things said, I find some of it to be little more penetrable than the astrology articles. At least I can see how the article is salvageable, though. The vast majority of the astrology articles in question are written for insiders, do not establish why any one else should care about it or what the importance of the topic is within the religion, and do not cite significant sources outside of the holy books directly; in fact they mostly act as synopses or tutorials for said books rather than encyclopedic articles. That, in addition to the fringey material claims, make the cases different. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If I grant the patina of art history and a few outside references, how about the theology article that Holy Spirit (Christianity) sends me to: Pneumatology (Christianity) and many of the others in the Christian theology template at the bottom of that article? One in-line citation to "Psychological Biblical Criticism" and pretty darn impenetrable and written for insiders. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, many articles are cloaked in impenetrable jargon and require an advanced knowledge of the topic to even begin to approach. However, this is not really a reason why these articles do not need to be improved. If anything, all this means is that, as a community, we should work harder to make sure our articles have thorough references and do not refer to concepts like the holy ghost or the Chinese zodiac or transubstantiation without at least touching the cultural and religious context. It's not just about readability, it's about usefulness and the policies should ensure that all articles -- regardless of subject -- are reasonably accessible to readers. Alicb (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for improving articles. I just don't understand the moral panic splashed across three noticeboards because some Hinduism articles need editing when no such panic exists over the innumerable Christianity articles that also need editing. One person's fringe theories are another person's religion. See WP:WORLDVIEW. And Misplaced Pages isn't going to break because some articles need editing. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@IP User, this is the Fringe Theory Noticeboard - our mission is to examine fringe topics on Misplaced Pages. At the moment this editor is making a lot of additions to the mainspace that are highly questionable - actually I've been reviewing many of User:Aditya soni's changes - this editor's older contributions about Hinduism and Buddhism seem to be significantly better articles than the recent articles about Hindu Astrology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The question is by what definition is Hindu Astrology a fringe theory given that astrology is much more central to Hinduism than it is to some western religions? How is it not religion and religion that is practiced by more people than the entire population of the United States? If the claim is that it is fringe is based on it being unscientific, then transubstantiation is fringe and so on. Why can these articles not be edited to apply to "adherents" and "followers" as I have done with Reka yoga . Why must the creator be burned as a witch for the sin of having added religious content to Misplaced Pages that needs editing? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is burning anybody as a witch. My main concerns are the poor quality of writing, original research and lack of verifiability of the astrology article. I'm also concerned that many of the astrology articles do not meet our standards of notability which are really at the core of Misplaced Pages. If you disagree with these policies, it might be best to select another wiki! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, talking about witch burnings is ridiculous and quite frankly insulting. No one is talking about having the creator of these articles punished or harmed in any way. No one is calling him a sinner. I don't know about anyone else, but I think that there is a lot of value of this user's contributions and that is why I am eager to find a positive solution that involves remediating the articles in question, not simply deleting them outright. I think we can all agree that these articles need work; we shouldn't get hung up on which noticeboard things are posted to -- we can always move it out of this one into another one at any time if the discussion here isn't helpful. The main concern that I have with this user is that he has so far not been very communicative. Alicb (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

They are talking about having him punished, yes. There is the concept of a draconian and arbitrary sanction to prevent creation of articles except via WP:AFC. That, to me, is punishment. Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that this discussion is better held at ANI where it has been raised with a view to stopping the editor from creating new articles. That discussion seems to me to pre-empt any discussion here. While we have no obvious concept of seniority of noticeboards, one with the direct power to sanction an editor seems to me to take logical precedence over one that may wish to do it.

It appears from the outside that this is a 'my religious nuttery is better than thy religious nuttery' discussion, concealed in a procedural discussion about a reasonably large number of articles created by a prolific editor who writes in arcane English and whose referencing may or may not be imperfect for some or all of the time. That editor has now joined the discussion at ANI with words showing calm contemplation of the matter at hand.

If this is a matter of article quality then that can be addressed in the usual way, ranging from improvement where possible to deletion where necessary. There is no time limit on this. If it means work, so be it. If there are few who will do this work, so be it.

If this is a matter of article quantity then we need to take a long inward look. I would like to be as productive! I wonder how the editor in question does it! Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that any punitive actions may be unwarranted in this case. Having spent more time reviewing User:Aditya soni's edits the problematic articles seem to be mostly this editor's later works on Astrology. They are borderline unreadable, poorly sourced and still give rise to concerns WP:OR and WP:N concerns. Bumping 160 articles out of main-space is also an unwarranted action given that a considerable proportion of this editor's contributions do not give reasons for concern. At this time I believe that a process of active engagement might yield the best possible result. I still think that the AFCs we have open on four of her astrology articles should remain. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I was invited to ANI for a third opinion. The concepts the user writes on are "real" concepts (not WP:FRINGE) in Hindu astrology. That said; many of them do not warrant an independent article, but however need to mentioned in the master article. Trikasthanas (astrology) IMO should be merged with Bhāva and retained as a para or 2. The articles created by the user are primarily based on WP:PRIMARY sources, thus may be coloured by the author's perception (Read WP:OR). Articles like Devatas (Vedanta) seem to be WP:POVFORKs of the master article (in this case, Rigvedic deities or Deva (Hinduism)).Redtigerxyz 06:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"The question is by what definition is Hindu Astrology a fringe theory". It makes claims about the natural world that contradict the scientific mainstream and is a near non-existence position in the scientific community. This makes it fringe. It's also pseudoscientific by both common definitions. It fails to meet the definitions of pseudoscience since the predictions of astrologers fall into the empirically testable domain but fail to meet the standards of science, and also its proponents claim to be scientific. "Why must the creator be burned as a witch for the sin of having added religious content to Misplaced Pages that needs editing?", the edits under discussion here are not about religious areas that do not impact on scientific domains. If a reader popped across an article saying that Einstein didn't do well in school because of astrology it's misinforming them (and the old version of that said it in the wikipedia tone). The editor isn't following our notability criteria, our fringe theories guideline, our sourcing guidelines or in fact anything. I personally offered a note on fringe theories a year ago so I see little excuse for him being unaware. Second Quantization (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

META: Move (or link) WP:NFRINGE into the main WP:N guidelines Suggestion

Kindly review my proposal at the WP:N talk-page to restructure the notability guidelines for fringe topics. The rationale behind my change is to make it easier for editors to find the relevant notability guidance for fringe topics which is somewhere buried within WP:FRINGE and not linked to from WP:N as most users might expect. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Health Equation: Health = Nutrients/Calories

Joel Fuhrman (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
(Add) Relatedly: Aggregate Nutrient Density Index (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
(Add) Also related: Nutritarian (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Seems to be and mixed up with anti-vax some and questionable dietary concepts, but the fringe nature of the concepts here wasn't (and still isn't) properly apparent. More eyes welcome ... Alexbrn 05:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This stuff is important given Whole Foods's implicit endorsement, but my fringe-nutrition-fu is failing: the best even vaguely critical material I could find was from, of all people, Andrew Weil. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I added the third article. It has only two sources both absolutely primary and a search of several resources shows no evidence of notability. The article reads like complete OR by an advocate. I suggest AfD for Nutritarian. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The minimal content on Aggregate Nutrient Density index could be merged to Fuhrman, Nutritarian could be made a redir to Fuhrman also. Then Fuhrman's article could be cleaned up. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Question on possible fringe source

FYI: In Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#whowhatwhy.com, I've posted a question on how Russ Baker's WhoWhatWhy may be used in Umbrella Man (JFK assassination). Thanks! Location (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the overall tone of the article than I am about this particular source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ronan Coghlan

Is this guy notable? He seems to have written his own article. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is a viable claim to WP:N it's probably going to lie in WP:NAUTHOR. The cited sources are worthless. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to find anything in reliable sources independent of the subject to support WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NBOOK. Location (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ronan Coghlan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ipuwer papyrus

Not sure if this is fringe but I think it is. We have an editor adding their own research (which seems to be something he doesn't understand at all although he says he's read WP:NOR to this article, adding their own parallels between Exodus passages and the Ipuwer papyrus. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, this is what he cites as his source. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And adding the whole table looks like copyvio as well as WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely notable fringe, and there is a great deal of critical treatment of the thesis. I haven't gone over the article yet, but it could easily be cut down to something brief and balanced, with the ohrnet page as a ext. link for the chart. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor is about to be topic banned, see . Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Krippner

Someone using Krippner's name (could be Krippner himself) has turned up deleting reliable references and adding in parapsychology journals. This may turn into what happened on Russell Targ, so perhaps people can help watch this one. Goblin Face (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Any thoughts on reverting this once well-cited article to this version? Location (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Anything is better than the current disaster, and that suggestion seems reasonable. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Second Roxy the dog. When I looked it was a mess, prior version superior. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Rosemary Willis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rosemary Willis was a 10-year old witness to the assassination of JFK. Voluminous as the Warren Commission report was, Rosemary's name appears in it only once and that is in a brief mention by Phillip Willis, her father, during his testimony (see page 596 of Appendix VII). Investigating the possibility of a gunman on the "grassy knoll shooter", the HSCA gave her three paragraphs (see page 7 of Appendix XII). In addition to that primary source material, I found two reliable secondary sources quoting her belief in a conspiracy (i.e. 1978 Texas Monthly article, 1979 UPI article) and another that touches on her movements in the Zapruder film (1993 article by Gerald Posner in US News & World Report). The rest appear to be from fringe sources quoting her or analyzing her movements. I also found her name mentioned in sources unrelated to the assassination (i.e. the obituaries of family members and legal documents), but I'll omit them from this post for privacy reasons. Question: Is this person notable enough for a stand alone article? BTW, lost in all of this is Rosemary Willis (Miss Virginia). Location (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

My opinion... no. My views is that this would fall into WP:BLP1E - an otherwise unknown individual knoew for one event. Granted, it's a massive event, but her role in it certainly wasn't. There's a place for people like this when their minor involvement prompts personal study and research to the point where they become an expert on the subject and make a living on the public speaking circuit or writing books. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Mentions in obituaries have nothing to do with the one event for which she received any coverage. I'd nominate it for deletion. St★lwart 05:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"a unified process of healing and personal empowerment"

Vivation (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
(Add: a related article) Jim Leonard (Vivation) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

My PROD was decline by an editor who said "as an expert on this subject, it contains entirely neutral language". The topic doesn't have much presence, especially in serious publications ... Alexbrn 07:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Questionable language has been removed agreeably. Since this language has been removed, and was the sole reason, besides independent outside sources (which have been added), requesting a cancellation of PROD. Playanaut (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The PROD was contested (by you), which means it has gone away. I still think there's a question whether either (let alone both) of these articles should exist - not finding high-quality sources. Alexbrn 08:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn - 'both' articles? I am only aware of the one. Can you paste the link of the second, please? Playanaut (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned above, the Jim Leonard (Vivation) article is also problematic. Alexbrn 09:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that. Someone added copious amounts of anecdotes and redundant information. I've since removed and cleaned it up. Having done a bibliography search for Jim Leonard turned up over 60 books, including the national best seller "The Artist Way" by Julia Cameron, as well as the more recently popular "The Presence Process" by Michael Brown, who considers Vivation to be among the primary influences of his own work. Jim Leonard's first book sold over 200,000 copies. Given this, I think the 'notability' issue for his entry should be removed. Playanaut (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Breathwork sure has some incredible see-also library! (NOTE: articles linked in this section previously are also included in the list.)

jps (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vivation & Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jim Leonard (Vivation). Alexbrn 08:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The creator of those articles identified himself here, unsurprisingly he has a massive conflict of interest as he is the "Director of Vivation International and the Vivation Professional Training School" and "train most new Vivation Professionals in the world today" . -- 92.2.66.209 (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the above post is appropriate per WP:OUTING. The user has removed the information on their user page and use of personal information removed from WP used to in this way seems what is explicitly not permitted per the harassment policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Walled garden?

To the above list add:

Leonard Orr

The breathwork articles are in very poor shape: what little is sourced is sourced mostly to "in universe" primary publications, fringe claims are asserted, and there is much undue/promotional guff. Alexbrn 11:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(Add) I've had a go at improving Rebirthing-breathwork, and am now looking at Leonard Orr: this seems to be lovingly constructed almost entirely out of Orr's own work. Alexbrn 12:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(Add) Fixed by merging the small amount of salvageable content in Leonard Orr to Rebirthing-breathwork (which in turn might be better merged to Breathwork ... ) Alexbrn 05:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Neutral" POV

Did you know that if we simply state that what crashed in Roswell, NM was a top secret balloon, that this is not a "neutral" POV?

What crashed in Roswell, NM in 1947 was a balloon. It was not a craft filled with ETs. Can we please simply WP:ASSERT this?

Thanks,

jps (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. As far as I know, what is was that crashed is still a matter of dispute. NPOV requires presenting all significant points of view. It's not up to us to settle the dispute.- Mr X 22:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there any high quality non-UFOlogy related sources that doubt it was a balloon? If not, WP:ASSERT applies. Yobol (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find a single reliable source which claims there is a controversy in the sense of a reasonable debate between equally plausible narratives. jps (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of considerations of WP:ASSERT, this edit smacks of WP:VALID, and I would not call it a neutral POV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a problem with WP:ASSERT for fringe topics in that the two bullet points are asymmetric in meaning: while a "fact" is defined as "information ... about which there is no serious dispute", an "opinion" is defined as something which is merely "a matter which is subject to dispute" (not serious dispute). I've seen a case recently of a fringe proponent pointing to the second definition as reason why anything which is disputed at all cannot be asserted. Personally, I think the definition of opinion should be changed to "information which is subject to serious dispute". Alexbrn 08:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That's easily fixed: . jps (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that Rbreen has fixed the disputed content. I agree with MrX -except the "the most famous explanation of what occurred is" part-. When this case is analysed piece by piece, it can be seen that, we neither have a real "mainstream view" nor have a "fact" about this incident at hand. We just have a statement from U.S Government and Armed Forces. Were there any scientific challenge/survey against this statement/disclosure at that time? Can we claim that all the statements from U.S.Governments and Armed Forces are unquestionable/unobjectionable? They basically have a strong conflict of interest regarding any incident related to the national security. One of their job is to shape the public opinion; you can't shape it with ultimate truths/facts. This is not a "Mars is a planet" kind of situation, therefore the second bullet point of WP:ASSERT should apply. Logos (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What source is there to provide evidence of a "serious dispute" it was a weather balloon? Alexbrn 12:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There are several: The Roswell Incident, UFO Crash at Roswell, Crash at Corona, and Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell to name a few. Logos is correct, and to repeat myself, we don't need to make conclusions for the reader. If we did, would we then edit the lede of Jesus to read "Jesus , also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus of Galilee, is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God, but he is not. He was just a man."?- Mr X 13:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Those don't look like serious publications. Our policy says we must identify fringe views and state the mainstream view (so no, we don't leave it up to the readers - aka "teaching the controversy" - and for topics like Young Earth creationism the facts are stated here as facts). If indeed it is a fringe view that something other than a balloon crashed in Roswell, it should be clear to the reader how that conflicts with a mainstream/reality-based view. Alexbrn 13:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Asserting that someone is or is not the "Son of God" is a rather weird red herring to this discussion. Everyone agrees that Jesus was a man, even those who think he was the Son of God. We have no evidence that "God" exists, so to say that Jesus is "not" the "Son of God" requires an empirical question as to what a "Son of God" actually is. We have no phenomenological description of such. In contrast, we do have a phenomenological description of what a extraterrestrial lifeform would entail -- and we know that this is not what was found in Roswell. The appropriate comparison, if you would like to make one, is to privilege the argument that some gnostics make saying that Jesus was not a man and claiming that there is some controversy over whether Jesus was actually a man or was not. Misplaced Pages has no problem WP:ASSERTing the fact that Jesus was a man. We should have no problem WP:ASSERTing that the thing that crashed in 1947 in Roswell was a balloon. jps (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you define as "serious publications". I assume that the witnesses, researchers, authors, editors, publishers, and (some) readers consider them serious. The Roswell crash has been very widely covered in popular media, so that would seem to refute the notion that it's fringe (not part of the mainstream). WP:PSCI doesn't apply, because the topic is not being presented as science. Airborne objects do indeed sometimes crash.- Mr X 13:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSCI makes plain it applies to "other fringe subjects, for instance ... claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked". By your reasoning here, Misplaced Pages should treat the supposed faking of the Apollo moon landing as just another POV, and not as fringe! Alexbrn 14:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: Yep. Airborne objects do crash. But since we aren't being visited by ETs, we know that what crashed in Roswell was not an ET craft. In many UFO incidents we could leave it right there, but we actually can go one better. We actually do know what crashed. It's been identified: the evidence is clear. It was a balloon. I don't know of any serious, level-headed investigator who says otherwise. To compare, the 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly was clearly a rocket and the Tunguska event was clearly a chunk of space rock. We don't pretend otherwise in those articles, neither should we in the Roswell article. jps (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What we know is that the military said it was a balloon/kite and others say it was something else. I ask again, has that dispute been settled? As to the rest of your argument " I don't know of any serious, level-headed investigator who says otherwise", I suggest reading the article and maybe a few sources. - Mr X 15:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no sane people who think that what crashed in Roswell was an ET craft. NONE of the sources in the article indicate otherwise. There is no serious dispute about this. The evidence is clearly all on one side and zero on the other. jps (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: We don't need to bring sources for the type of wording we propose, but you need to bring sources for the language jps and others insist on.

@QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: "We actually do know what crashed. It's been identified: the evidence is clear. It was a balloon." Who were the ones making that identification? If the answer is U.S.Government and Armed Forces, the argument above still stands, and holds true. U.S.Government and Armed Forces are like self published sources, therefore we can not accept their identification as fact in wikipedia. We should take their strong conflict of interest and heavily biased position into account. There should had been independent reviewers/investigators at the time of the incident, which is not possible even today. Can you visit Area 51 as an independent investigator? Since nobody have/had (or can/could have) that probability/possibility, we should use second bullet point of WP:ASSERT. Despite their biased views, even these 3 sane academics do not use that assertive language like the one jps and others insist on: "they point toward the crash of a military balloon as a more likely explanation for the Roswell phenomenon". Logos (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Everyone... EVERYONE who studies this subject that is not a true believer in alien visitations agrees that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the U.S. Government and Armed Forces version. That's independent sources. That's how we find out what the WP:MAINSTREAM approach to the subject is. jps (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Identification is different than evaluating the findings and casting an opinion afterwards; so, the answer can not be EVERYONE. Logos (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that you speak for "everyone", and citing your own essay is not especially convincing.- Mr X 18:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has cited a single source to the contrary that wasn't written by an insane extraterrestrial believer. The anthropologists acknowledge that there is no serious dispute over what happened, and so we should WP:ASSERT that it clearly wasn't an ET crash landing. Misplaced Pages simply is not the place for people to promote their peculiar beliefs about aliens as though they have any validity in serious references. jps (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

People really don't seem to understand WP:VALID: . jps (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Not everyone buys the government's line, The Lure of the Edge Scientific Passions, Religious Beliefs, and the Pursuit of UFOs p25 "Edgar Mitchell who stated on nationwide television that the government was covering up the facts of the crash at Roswell and the facts about UFOs in general. He also stated that he had met people from three countries “who in the course of their official duties claim to have had personal firsthand encounter experiences” with extraterrestrials. Mitchell did not discount their stories." Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Edgar Mitchell, the ~~looniest~~ most credulous of the astronaut corps, is not a WP:FRIND. Try again. jps (talk) 3:11 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

As a long-time editor on this article, my personal view is that the incident was a weather balloon and I have reverted many edits that are fringe theories of extraterrestrial visitation. However, the present series of edits by jps have not been neutral and do not take into account the conflicting views and that have surrounded the "incident". The wording of the article, in terms of being neutral, was quite acceptable before the current series of edits commenced. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Which "conflicting views"? We don't privilege the viewpoints of the ET-UFO crowd as being equally valid. Before, the article violated WP:VALID and now it does not. jps (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You fail to understand what I am attempting to say. I agree that the weather balloon is the most likely explanation and I accept that as fact. Check the article history, you will find many reverts by myself on some of the wacky theories. The neutral tone was perfectly OK before your edits "We don't privilege the viewpoints of the ET-UFO crowd" is not neutral. Finally, please do lecture me on my own Talk page and post comments in the wrong position. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken, "We don't privilege the viewpoints of the ET-UFO crowd" is entirely in keeping with WP:NPOV § WP:DUE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't privilege the ET/UFO crowd. It presents their the material in proportion to it's prominence in reliable sources. That's how we achieve neutral presentation. We can't simply declare the USAF version of events to be the truth simply because we personally believe other explanations to be less plausible. We follow reliable sources, and until the dispute is settled by some sort of consensus, we have to present all significant viewpoints, without language that declares one view valid over others.- Mr X 20:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The "other version" is not simply "less plausible". It is supposed to be on-purpose marginalized per WP:UNDUE. jps (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to jump in on this. Per WP:EDITORIAL, the use of "although" in the current version's second sentence could undermine the first part of the statement or give undo credibility to the second part of it. Is there a reason that this does not simply state "According to reports released by the United States Air Force..."? It's also no longer clear to me what specific wording is being challenged or what specific wording others would like to be included, so perhaps an example sentence or two could be given. Location (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

On that specific sentence I'm with Location. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points, all. Here is my preferred version with the problematic parallelism removed. jps (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The article now states:

The U.S. Government has disclosed that the incident involved a secret U.S. military Air Force surveillance balloon, although some media at the time reported that the object was actually a flying saucer containing extraterrestrial life.

Moving "although" to the second part of the sentence could be construed as just shifting the editorial bias that WP:EDITORIAL cautions us not to make, and "disclosed" might be a violation of WP:SAY on par with "explained" or "clarified". Why not...

Some newspapers at the time reported that the object was a flying saucer containing extraterrestrial life. According to reports released by the United States Air Force in 1995 and 1997, the incident involved a secret military surveillance balloon.

...? The order is merely chronological in keeping with the order in which the public learned of the information. Location (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Reports released by the United States Air Force in 1995 and 1997 showed that the incident in fact involved a secret military surveillance balloon." QED Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Reports released by the United States Air Force in 1995 and 1997 ~~showed~~ said that the incident ~~in fact ~~involved a secret military surveillance balloon." "Showed...in fact" is the same as "explained" in WP:SAY. Location (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)~~~~

~~I still think "showed" would be better than "said" here. It's clear that we can WP:ASSERT this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)~~
~~A couple of concrete proposals for content have been made on the talk page of the article that may be worth consideration. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)~~
~~Re-title to "Roswell UFO conspiracy theories" ?~~
I think its the framing of the topic that is the main issue and tweaking the sentences won't really address it. The cure may be a name change to Roswell UFO conspiracy theories which is the actually notable topic. the crash "incident" itself, not so much. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that addresses the root of the problem. Alexbrn 03:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I support TRPoD's proposal. It makes sense, the conspiracy theories are more the subject of the article than the "incident". - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Articles should be titled using a topic's most WP:COMMONNAME. If we really want to change the article title, the way to go about it is to do a survey of reliable sources and see what they call it. Changing article titles to address issues in the text seems like a bad idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

out of process - Assuming good faith by TRPoD, but renaming and forking discussions should take place on article talk pages. I'm mostly opposed to this proposal, but I will save my detailed reasons for the appropriate venue.- Mr X 12:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this notice board is not the place to conduct a formal rename process. (and I am not the one that pulled the suggestion into a separate section )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Just misinterpret/misrepresent the policies & guidelines, and a domino effect comes to the scene. I'm sure the naming was discussed before: Logos (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC) @Blueboar: WP:Consensus can change but it better not for this specific incident which had occurred some 60 years ago. It is a bit late to change the already established consensus over the naming, because googling gives many instances of "Roswell UFO incident", some of which being credible sources. I believe the current WP:RECOGNIZABLE name was born well before wikipedia. Nevertheless, my suggestion would be "Roswell crash 1947". Logos (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Logos... according to your link, the last discussion prior to this was back in 2008... remember that WP:Consensus can change. I think it reasonable to at least see if consensus has changed since the last time it was discussed. In any case, User:A Quest For Knowledge has it right. First, we should see if there is a WP:COMMONNAME for the event (Possibilities might include "Roswell incident" or "Roswell crash"). I don't know whether there is a COMMONNAME, but if so, then that name should be used as the title of our article (even if it might appear POV... see WP:POVNAMING for more on this). If there isn't a COMMONNAME, then we can devise our own descriptive title. Our WP:AT policy says that descriptive titles we should be neutral (but note... using the term "conspiracy theory" in the context of describing a theory that a conspiracy has taken place is neutral).
~~So... barring a COMMONNAME, I would support TRPD's suggestion as a good descriptive title (but there are others I would support as well). Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)~~
I don't really like "Roswell UFO conspiracy theories". Yes, there's certainly an aspect of conspiracy theories about it, but that's not this topic's defining characteristic which is that an alien spacecraft supposedly crash landed on Earth. The conspiracy theory aspect is secondary to that. A very brief search of reliable sources suggests that "Roswell UFO crash" might be the most commonly used name. If editors are seriously interested in changing the name (and someone wants me to), I can do a more exhaustive search. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
show me one "alien spacehip ship crashed at Roswell" claim that does NOT include "and the government covered it up". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
~~Sprawl~~
~~And quite white this enormous article Air Force reports on the Roswell UFO incident - built largely from iffy sources - also exists, I don't know. Alexbrn 08:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)~~
~~This looks like a POV fork of Roswell UFO incident. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)~~
~~Also: Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident. jps (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)~~

~~Parapsychology~~
~~Some strange fringe suggestions on the parapsychology talk-page. Any commentary on this appreciated. Goblin Face (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)~~

~~New Chronology (Fomenko)~~
Needs eyes, just found an editor allegedly fixing pov issues by adding " Some see the work as pseudohistory because it has experienced a great deal of contempt and ridicule from orthodox historians and mainstream theorists." Which doesn't even make sense and is not true. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

~~Robert Bruce (author)~~
This article might have to be redirected to astral projection. Cannot find any reliable sources. Let me know if anyone knows of any? Would a redirect be appropriate here? Goblin Face (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
In what would be considered reliable, non-fringe sources, I found his name noted in conjunction with one of his books. Probably among the most notable mentions within fringe sources, mentioned on the Coast to Coast website. He's probably notable within the fringe universe, but I cannot find anything that would work for Misplaced Pages purposes. Location (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

~~John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories~~
It's an NPOV train wreck. If there are three sentences in this allegedly encyclopedic article that offer any balance to the catalog of fringe theories offered up, I couldn't find them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

~~Acupuncture~~
Sourced text was deleted. The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is a reliable source and infections is a common adverse effect. Specific examples is appropriate. This edit was counterproductive and the editor seems to not understand. See Talk:Acupuncture#Reliable_source.3F_-_.22From_Alien_Abductions_to_Zone_Therapy.22. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
~~This editor seems to have a name I saw in a recent ARCA about this subject. I think you know that AE can be invoked if the problematic behavior continues.John Carter (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)~~

~~Cosmological General Relativity~~
Cosmological General Relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stumbled across this recently created article. Just "Physicist John Hartnett and others have extended the theory and used it as the basis for a creationist cosmology" in the lead sets my warning bells ringing. The article's huge and I'm rather swamped right now, so I haven't even attempted to read through it all, but a quick skim through it hasn't eased my sense of alarm (carbon-14 decaying to carbon-12?). Furthermore, opening up the article for editing revealed a huge comment, including
WARNING! Do NOT make any substantive changes to this article UNLESS you have THOROUGHLY reviewed the source material in the references, and understand what you're doing. While CGR borrows terminology from the standard cosmological model, it defines many terms differently, and with different underlying assumptions. Most current understanding of modern cosmology is directly derived from FLRW/Lambda-CDM and most of it either DOES NOT apply or applies in a SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT way.

~~(emphasis added)~~

~~Using established terminology to mean different things is another classic fringe indicator. I'd like some more eyes on this, please. Kolbasz (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)~~
Categories: